WP/18053/2026 of Munukonda Vara Prasad Rao Vs AP Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., on 6 July 2026

ORDER:

1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondents in not releasing the payment of 80 per cent retirement gratuity, earned leave encashment and GIS amounts to the Petitioner on account of pendency of criminal proceedings and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The facts are as follows;

3. The Petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation while working as Line Inspector in 33/11 KV Sub Station, Yernagudem, East Godavari District. While the Petitioner was in service, an ACB trap was laid on 23.12.2014 for demanding and accepting the bribe amount. While so, after due investigation, Charge-sheet was filed and the case was numbered as C.C.No.34 of 2017 (old), which was renumbered as C.C.No.124 of 2018 on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Vijayawada.

4. The present grievance of the Petitioner is that on account of pendency of said criminal case, 80% of retirement gratuity, G.I.S and earned leave encashment amount as provided under

G.O.Rt.No.1097, Finance and Planning (FE.Pen.I) Dept., dated 22.06.2000 was not being paid to the Petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents submits that the issue is covered by the Judgment dated 16.02.2022 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.196 of 2022, wherein it was held that the case of the Petitioner can be considered for encashment of earned leave and not for gratuity.

6. Heard the respective counsels.

7. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.196 of 2022 had considered as to whether the retirement gratuity can be extended in cases, where individuals are facing criminal cases. The relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted below; “9. A joint reading of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Section 52 of the Rules, 1980 along with G.O.Rt.No.1097 dated 22.06.2000 would make it clear that the proviso appended to clause (c) concerns a situation where the retired Government Servant is undergoing departmental proceedings. The proviso does not deal with a situation where the retired Government Servant is facing judicial proceedings. While the first part of clause(c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980 provides that no gratuity shall be paid until the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings or issue of the final orders, the proviso enables the Government to release 80% of the eligible gratuity in appropriate cases, where the retired Government Servant is facing the disciplinary proceedings. However, the said enabling proviso has not dealt with a situation where the retired Government Servant is facing judicial proceedings.

10. The case decided by the Division Bench of common High Court in W.P. No.30443 of 2016 was dealing with the prayer of a retired Government Servant for release of leave encashment. It was not dealing with the prayer for release of 80% of gratuity. The judgment in the matter of R. Veerabhadram vs. Government of A.P. reported in (1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 43 referred by the learned single Judge clearly holds that by virtue of Rule 52(c) of the Rules, 1980, there is an express power empowering the Government to withhold gratuity during the pendency of any judicial proceedings against the employee. Even though the said judgment was rendered before issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1097, the fact remains that there is no amendment in the main part of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980. As we have mentioned earlier, the proviso only concerns a situation where the employee is facing disciplinary proceedings and not when he is facing judicial proceedings. In our considered view, the judgment in the case of R. Veerabhadram (supra) would still hold in a case where the employee is facing judicial proceedings.

11. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for leave encashment. To this extent, learned State counsel would not object to the prayer because, according to him, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in W.P. No.30443 of 2016 deals with encashment of leave and moreover, clause(c) of sub-rule(1) of Rule 52 of the Rules, 1980 deals with gratuity and not with leave encashment.”

8. In view of the above, the same was followed in a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10565 of 2026 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 21.04.2026 with the following directions;

“5. Considering the observations of the Division Bench, this Writ Petition is also disposed of directing the respondents herein to pay the leave encashment salary to the petitioner, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs.”

9. In view of the same, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions;

i) The Petitioner shall be entitled only to leave encashment and the Petitioner is not entitled for gratuity pending criminal case and the same shall be subject to the outcome of

C.C.No.124 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada.

ii) The Respondents shall disburse the leave encashment amount to the Petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

iii) No order as to costs.

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

Date: 07.07.2026 eha

Whether the order is: Speaking

Reasoned

Reportable

Non-reportable

WRIT PETITION No.18053 of 2026 Dated: 07.07.2026

eha