WP/26712/2009 of M. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2009

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDYANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

Writ Petition No.26712 of 2009

ORDER :(per Justice Noushad Ali)

--

The facts are in a narrow compass. The petitioner was initiallyappointed as District Munsif and later promoted as Sub-Judge on 24-02-1986. He was later promoted as District &Sessions Judge, Grade-II on 23-03-1992 and as Grade-I on 05-12-2000. He was also granted super time scale on 26-05-2005. While the petitioner was working as the Chairman of A.P.Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, he was retired on attaining the age ofsuperannuation of 58 years on 30-06-2006. However, he wascontinued in service and worked as such till 22-08-2006. Thepetitioner was served with an order vide G.O.Ms.No.121 Law (LA&J.SC.F) Department, dated 22-08-2006 whereby he was ordered to retirefrom service on 30-06-2006 (AN) indicating that the said notificationwould take effect from 30-06-2006. It was also indicated in theaforesaid order that three months pay and allowances (last drawn)should be drawn and paid to the petitioner as recommended by theHigh Court of A.P. vide letter Roc.No.4079/2006-B Spl., dated 03-07-2006 issued by the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of A.P.

The petitioner complied with the orders in G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 22-08-2006 and handed over charge on 23-08-2006.

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is entitledfor three months pay and allowances in lieu of three months notice inaddition to the payment of salary for the month of July, 2006 and 22days in the month of August, 2006 during which period he dischargedhis duties. As the respondents failed to pay the pay and allowances,the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

2. The first respondent filed counter stating that as per Rule 44 (1)(b)(b) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the appointing authorityshould give notice in writing to the Government servant at least threemonths before the date on which he is required to retire in publicinterest or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. It isfurther stated that on receipt of proposals from the second respondenti.e., Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of A.P., vide LetterRoc.No.4079/2006-B Spl., dated 03-07-2006, the Government issuedorders in G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 22-08-2006 and retired the petitionerfrom service with effect from 30-06-2006, the date of age ofsuperannuation of 58 years. It is further stated that the petitioner iseligible for payment of pay and allowances for three months with effectfrom 30-06-2006 only, on which date the notification came into forceand since the petitioner was already paid pay and allowances for themonths of July and August, 2006, the petitioner is entitled for onemonth salary for the month of September, 2006.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner reached the age ofsuperannuation of 58 years on 30-06-2006. However, he wascontinued to work till 22-08-2006 and retired by virtue of orders inG.O.Ms.No.121, dated 22-08-2006. The Government vide orders inG.O.Ms.No.121, dated 22-08-2006 directed payment of three monthspay and allowances in lieu of three months notice as per Rule 44 (1)(b)(b) of A.P. Revised pension Rules. However the same has not beenpaid on the ground that the petitioner was already paid pay andallowances for the months of July and August, 2006 and that he isentitled to only for one month pay i.e., September, 2006.

5. Under Rule 44 (1) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, aGovernment servant may be required by the appointing authority to

retire in public interest at any time after he has completed 33 years ofqualifying service but before attaining 58 years age and as per proviso(b), the appointing authority has to give notice in writing to theGovernment servant at least three months before the date on which heis required to retire in the public interest or three months pay andallowances in lieu of such notice. Applying the same, the petitioner isentitled for three months pay and allowances as he was not givennotice of retirement and the first respondent also does not dispute thesame. The only controversy is whether the three months period shouldbe reckoned from 30-06-2006 on which date the petitioner wasordered to retire vide notification in G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 22-08-2006or from 22-08-2006 till which date the petitioner was continued inservice. In our opinion the petitioner actually worked during the monthof July, 2006 and also for a period of 22 days in the month of August,2006 for which he is entitled for regular pay. The object of Rule 44 (1)(b)(b) appears to be preparatory for retirement and provide sustenancebefore a Government servant would actually demit office. Further,there cannot be retirement with retrospective effect. In that view of thematter, the three months period should be reckoned from 23-08-2006and the petitioner is entitled for three months pay and allowances fromthe said date. He is also entitled for his regular pay for the month ofJuly, 2006 and 22 days in the month of August, 2006.

6. We, therefore, allow the Writ Petition and direct the respondents topay three months pay and allowances to the petitioner reckoned from23-08-2006 and regular pay for the month of July, 2006 and 22 days inthe month of August, 2006, if not already paid. No costs.

________________

A.GOPAL REDDY, J.

______________

NOUSHAD ALI, J.

31[st ]December, 2009.

skmr