IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No: 24605 of 2008 Between: 1 The Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation and CAD Department, Errummanzil, Hyderabad. 2 The State of A.P., rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Government Irrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, N.S.Dam Circle, Hill Colony, Nalgonda District. 4 The Executive Engineer, B & R Division, Hill Colony, N.S.Dam, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND G. Satyanarayana Quarter No. A/212, Hill Colony, Nalgonda District. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the A.P. Administratie Tribunal passed in O.A.No.7280/2005 dt. 11.09.2008 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 11- 09-2008 passed in O.A.No.7280 of 2005 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent had retired from service on 30-04-2004 and even after lapse of one and half years he was not paid the pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits, he filed O.A.No.7280 of 2005 before the Tribunal claiming his retirement benefits with interest at 18% per annum. The Tribunal while admitting the O.A. granted interim direction to the petitioners to pay the provisional pension, if any disciplinary case is pending, or else, anticipatory pension, and gratuity be paid in accordance with Rule 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short – ‘the Rules’). The petitioners filed counter in the O.A. stating that though the respondent had submitted his pension papers on 02-08-2004, they were held up for want of No Due Certificate. It was also stated, by way of additional counter affidavit, that orders sanctioning anticipatory pension were issued on 18-02-2006 and the Superintending Engineer, N.S.Dam Circle, Hill Colony, sent the pension papers on 02-06-2006 and they were returned on 20-07- 2006, to make an entry, to the Superintending Engineer, and the Superintending Engineer sent the same, duly making an entry in the Service Register, to the Accountant General on 03-10-2006. The Tribunal, while observing that the petitioners ought to have taken steps to get the No Due Certificate of the respondent well in advance, held that even if there was any problem in settling the pension, the petitioners ought to have sanctioned the anticipatory pension immediately after his retirement and since as per the Rules failure to handover charge cannot be the ground to deny the anticipatory pension or anticipatory gratuity. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. directing the respondents to pay interest on all the retirement benefits with interest at 10% per annum. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services for petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that the petitioners ought to have taken steps to get the No Due Certificate of the respondent well in advance, and that the petitioners have failed to grant even the anticipatory pension and anticipatory gratuity as per the Rules, and that there was abnormal and inexcusable delay of on the part of the petitioners in granting the retirement benefits to the respondent, and granting interest at 10% per annum on all the retirement benefits, and therefore we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The writ petition is thus devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, at the request of the learned Government Pleader for Services, the time granted by the Tribunal is extended by two more weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J 11th November 2008 CVRK