HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATESWARA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1554 OF 2002 Dated:27.12.2006 Between Chimirala Veerabhadrayya ..... APPELLANT And A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad, reptd by its Secretary and three others. .....RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATESWARA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1554 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri Siva, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Moola Vijaya Bhaskar appearing for respondent No.1, the learned Government Pleader and Sri P.Balaram appearing for other respondents. The appellant herein is the unsuccessful petitioner in the writ petition who by way of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act seeks to assail the judgment dated 11.07.2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.12403 of 2002, rejecting his request for proper computation with regard to the pension and dearness allowance, as due and payable to him. Brieﬂy stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a retired Principal of A.P. Residential Junior College, Nagarjunasagar, Guntur District. Actually, he has to retire on 30.09.1986 after attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years, but, later, in view of change in the policy reducing the same, he was retired from service on 30.09.1983, which was unsuccessfully challenged in the earlier writ petition. Thereafter, the Director of Higher Education by his proceedings dated 14.09.1989 ﬁxed his pension at Rs.632/- (Rupees Six hundred and thirty two only) per month on the basis of the then existing Rules providing for computation of pension and sanctioned the gratuity accordingly. The main grievance of the appellant is to the eﬀect that having regard to the variation in the scales of pay, and the dearness allowance, necessarily the same has to be taken into account at the time of ﬁnal computation which has not been done in his case and therefore, he ﬁled Writ Petition No.6458 of 1998 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 03.02.1999, directing the appellant to approach the second respondent and submit a representation and thereupon, the second respondent was directed to make recalculation of the arrears payable to the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant submitted a representation on 13.07.1999 followed by a legal notice, to which a reply was given on 26.07.1999 reiterating the earlier position. Thereafter, the appellant herein ﬁled Contempt Case No.1192 of 1999, which was closed on 17.10.2001 permitting him to assail the same by way of appropriate proceedings. Hence, Writ Petition is ﬁled challenging the same. After contest, the learned Single Judge by referring to the chequered events found that the appellant’s request cannot be acceded to in view of the laches and delay of three years on his part in approaching this Court. Hence, this Writ Appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that having regard to the Rules existing at the relevant point of time with the varied scales of pay, in determination as to the pension and also retirement beneﬁts, the delay or laches would not come again nor constitute a ground to refuse the relief in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support, he sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in S.R.Bhanrale Vs. Union of India[1]. These submissions were sought to be repelled on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein on merits and on the ground of delay and laches. Having considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, we are of the view that on the face of it the authorities did not take into account the revised scales of pay with the dearness allowance, while computing the pension, to which the appellant normally would be entitled to. No reason is pointed out by other respondents as to why the revised scales could not be taken into account. On the contrary, the case of the ﬁrst respondent-Society, who has ﬁled a separate counter in this appeal, is to the eﬀect that in fact, they did make due recommendations to the authorities concerned for making proper computation of pension of the appellant herein in terms of the revised scales. However, the same is still pending and not yet considered. In view of the same and especially, having regard to the fact that the appellant has been prosecuting this case all along including the proceedings in Contempt Case, which was disposed of on 17.10.2001 and the present writ petition having been ﬁled on 20.06.2002, nothing as such can be attributed to the appellant towards delay or laches. Even otherwise, having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra, we are of the view that the appellant cannot be denied the relief prayed for on such grounds, more so, where the appellant’s case squarely falls for reconsideration on the basis of the revised scales of pay vis-à-vis the dearness allowance. The learned Single Judge did not give any ﬁnding or reason for the claim of appellant on revised scales, except rejecting the writ on the delay. During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out that respondent No.4 herein has unilaterally took back the account and transferred it to the link branch in Guntur without the consent or intimation as such to the appellant. Such an action is not at all warranted nor permissible under the circumstances of the case. Admittedly, neither any reason is forthcoming nor it is the case of respondent No.4 that the same was done after due intimation or with the consent of the appellant. Consequently, there shall also be direction to the respondent to transfer the account of the appellant to respondent No.4- bank. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the judgment, dated 11.07.2002, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.12403 of 2002 is set aside and respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the case of the appellant herein in terms of the proposals made by respondent No.1 and pass appropriate orders afresh on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ____________________________ M.VENKATESWARA REDDY, J 27.12.2006 dr [1] (1996) 10 SCC 172