IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14167 of 2008 Between: S. Lakshmi Narasimham S/o. Venkata Subbaiah Registration and Stamps Department, H.No. 1-5-5/4, New Maruthinagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad-35 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Treasury Officer, Prakasam District Ongole-1 2 Sub- Registrar of Assurances, Addanki, 3 Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Andhra Pradesh, NTR Estate, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 4 Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected to the Order dt. 7-1-2000 in OA No. 4280 of 1999 from the file of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad examine the same and set it aside after declaring the same as illegal, irregular, arbitrary vitiated by non consideration of material on record and non exercise of jurisdiction vested in it, violative of the principles of natural justice and offends articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently allow the said application as prayed for and pass such other orders or order. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking certiorari calling for the records relating to order, dated 07.01.2000, in O.A.No.4280 of 1999 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad; examine the same; set it aside and allow the O.A., after declaring the order as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he worked as Junior Assistant in the office of the second respondent and retired from service on 30.06.1995, on attaining the age of superannuation. Immediately thereafter, he applied for finalization of retiremental benefits. Pursuant thereto, vide letter, dated 22.11.1995, respondents 2 and 3 sent proposals to the fourth respondent for sanction. The latter sanctioned Rs.46,143/- and issued authorization for withdrawal to the first respondent. The first respondent dodged the matter for six months. Thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 09.07.1996, requesting the fourth respondent to revaluate the same. Later, the fourth respondent issued fresh authorization, and subsequent thereto, an amount of Rs.46,140/- was paid to the petitioner on 07.05.1997. However, the respondents did not pay the interest after November, 1995. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4280 of 1999 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to pay interest at 24% p.a. from 12/95 to 07.05.1997 and also to award compensation of Rs.20,000/- for delayed payment. Through order, dated 07.01.2000, the Tribunal disposed of the said application directing the petitioner to approach the Head of the Department for redressal of his grievance. In compliance with the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 01.02.2000, to the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps Department. However, the Commissioner, vide memo dated 10.05.2000, rejected his claim for interest and compensation. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I and perused the material on record. It appears, the petitioner questioned the action of the respondents for delayed payment of GPF amount and also sought a direction for payment of interest at 24% p.a. from 12/1995 to 07.05.1997, and an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on consideration of the material available on record, disposed of the said O.A., on 17.01.2000, directing the petitioner to approach the Head of the department. The petitioner accordingly approached the Head of the department, who, in turn, rejected the claim of the petitioner. When once the petitioner acted upon the order of the Tribunal before the Head of the department, the question of challenging the same before this Court does not arise. That apart, while the Head of the department rejected the claim of the petitioner in the year 2000, the petitioner now filed the present writ petition questioning the order passed by the Tribunal, after a lapse of about 7 ½ years. On perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the Tribunal on examination of the matter, rightly directed the petitioner to approach the Head of the department and we find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J. Dated:03.07.2008 ______________ C.V.RAMULU,J. GJ