IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28121 of 2008 Between: Nakka Sesha Rao S/o. Ramanna Drivers Colony, Gokavaram Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Superintendent of Post Offices Department of Posts Head Post Office Upstairs, Rajahmundry. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other writ, or order or direction declaring the action of the respondent in not releasing the retirement benefits of the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and further consequently set aside the order in O.A.465/2008 dt. 7-8-2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad by directing the respondent to release the retirement benefit amounts pertaining to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) ORDER: (Per Sri Justice SESHASAYANA REDDY) This Writ Petition has been field by the applicant in O.A.No. 465 of 2008 assailing the orders dated 7.8.2008 passed therein, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The facts in brief leading to filing of this Writ Petition by the applicant in O.A.No. 465 of 2008 are: The writ petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2008. Since his retrial benefits were not paid to him, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No. 465 of 2008. He also got issued legal notice dated 25.3.2008 prior to filing of O.A. The learned Tribunal after considering the material on record, disposed of the O.A directing the respondent to give reply to the legal notice dated 25.3.2008. Hence, the present Writ Petition. When the writ petition came up for admission Sri S.S.Varma, Standing Counsel for Additional Central Government, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner-applicant is that his retirement benefits are not settled. The reason for not settling the retirement benefits is due to pendency of attachment orders issued by the Civil Court vide E.P.No. 741 of 2007 in O.S.No. 386 of 2002. It is the contention of the petitioner that the retrial benefits are not liable for attachment. Such is the situation, the petitioner has to approach executing court and request for raising of the attachment in pursuance to the directions given by the Tribunal in O.A. There is no flaw in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage o admission itself. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 24.12.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Superintendent of Post Offices Department of Posts Head Post Office Upstairs, Rajahmundry. 2. 2CD copies