IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 25097 of 2007 Between: 1 C. Gopal Reddy, S/o. C. Ramalinga Reddy, A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. 2 A. Venkat Reddy, S/o.Sri A. Chinna Reddy, A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, General Administration (SPF) Section, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, rep by its Registrar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction or an appropriate writ, more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest at 12% per annum to the petitioners herein on difference of D.C.R.G. on Rs. 2,67,500/- in respect of 1st petitioner from 9-11-1999 to 17-4-2007 and Rs. 2,50,000/- in respect of 2nd petitioner from 30-6- 2003 to 18-5-2007 till the date the payment is made and pass such other order or others as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.GOPALA RAO GANDRAKOTA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.25097 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest at 12% per annum to the petitioners on the difference of Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity (for short ‘D.C.R.G’) of Rs.2,67,500/- in respect of the first petitioner from 09.11.1999 till 17.04.2007 and of Rs.2,50,000/- in respect of the second petitioner from 30.06.2003 to 18.05.2007, i.e., till the dates of respective payments. 3. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner was retired on 09.11.1999 as Vice Chairman of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘APAT’), after serving in various capacities prior to his retirement. So also, the second petitioner retired in the capacity of Acting Chairman of APAT on 30.06.2003. 4. Insofar as the first petitioner, the amount towards D.C.R.G was paid on 17.04.2007 and in respect of the second petitioner, the same was paid on 18.05.2007. Obviously, these payments, which they were entitled to, were paid with inordinate delay and the explanation on record by the respondents is not at all satisfactory, inasmuch as, the payment of D.C.R.G has to be made soon after the retirement or at least within a reasonable period after the retirement of the incumbent. 5. But, in the present case, obviously, in spite of the fact that the representations have been made by the petitioners soon after their retirement to the Accountant General through proper channel i.e., the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the amount payable to them towards difference of D.C.R.G. was not paid with due diligence within a reasonable time. 6. On the other hand, only after the second representation was made by the petitioners, the same had been considered somewhere in the year 2005, and the payments were eventually made in the year 2007. There is no plausible reason for the Government for the delay in processing the payment of difference of D.C.R.G since 1999 till the respective payments in the year 2007. 7. In our considered view, the above said treatment meted out to the petitioners 1 and 2 despite their long service as judicial officers in different capacities, who, eventually, retired as Vice Chairman and Acting Chairman of APAT, respectively, is not befittingly rewarded. The reward is only the belated payment, that too, after making two representations. Both the petitioners are senior citizens even by the date of their retirement and it is rather unfortunate for the Government to take such a long course and time to process their representations in paying the difference of D.C.R.G. We may also put on record our view that it is a disrespectful treatment to the erstwhile members of APAT after their retirement. 8. In similar case, in BAL KISHORE MODY vs. ARUN KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS[1], the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the aspect of payment of retirement benefits belatedly and it had awarded interest for the belated payment at the rate of 15% per annum. 9. In fact, we draw inspiration from the above judgment of the Supreme Court. 10. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the respective amounts received by the petitioners towards difference of D.C.R.G from the date of their retirement till the date of actual payment with utmost expedition, in any event, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 18.06.2008 Note: Issue CC in one week. B/o dr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration (SPF) Section, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 3 2 CCs to Government Pleader for General Administration, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT) 4 2 CD copies. [1] (2001) 10 SCC 174