J. Kotappa vs State Of Telangana And 7 Others

Heard Sri A.V.V.S.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services- III appearing for respondents 1, 3 to 8 and Sri K.Bala Krishna, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

Aggrieved by the decision of respondent-authorities to recover the amount from retirement benefits/with-holding the gratuity payable to the petitioner on the ground that he was paid excess amounts earlier, under G.O.Ms.No.330, Education (H1) Department, dated 10.08.1983, the petitioner herein filed O.A.No.10656 of 2012 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The said O.A, filed by the petitioner was disposed of as covered by the decision in O.A.No.8905 of 2008. In O.A.No.8905 of 2008, the Tribunal observed that the Full Bench of this Court while up-holding Act 1 of 2005, observed that the amounts already paid to Grade-II Pandits should not be recovered and sets aside the direction to recover the amounts from the respective candidates. The Tribunal therefore, observed that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21457 of 2004 & Batch, dated 16. 04.2010, it is no more permissible for the employer to recover the alleged excess amount paid/to adjust from the retirement benefits alleging that excess amount was paid.

The individual orders passed by the Tribunal in several O.As, were not implemented. The excess amount already adjusted from the gratuity payable to the individual employees was not repaid. Alleging non-compliance of the orders, C.A.No.1320 of 2013 & Batch were filed before the Tribunal. When these C.As, were listed, the Tribunal was informed that aggrieved by the order of Tribunal in O.A.No.8905 of 2008, W.P.No.33594 of 2013 was filed before this Court and by order, dated 25.11.2013 in W.P.M.P.No.41799 of 2013, this Court granted interim stay of operation of the order of the Tribunal. Taking note of this development, the Tribunal disposed of all the contempt cases observing that no direction can be issued to comply with the orders passed in O.As, pending disposal of W.P.No.33594 of 2013 and granted liberty to the applicants to avail appropriate remedy if the interim order is vacated or the writ petition is finally disposed of.

The Court is informed that W.P.No.33594 of 2013 was transferred to Andhra Pradesh High Court and by order dated 06.04.2021, the said writ petition was dismissed. Thus, the cloud of uncertainty was finally cleared on 06.04.2021.

This writ petition is filed praying to direct the respondents to implement the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A.No.10656 of 2012.

Learned Government Pleader, opposed the prayer sought by the petitioner on the ground that there is inordinate delay in seeking implementation of directions of the Tribunal and after long lapse of time, it is not open to the petitioner to seek enforcement of orders. Petitioner having kept quiet for so long, is dis-entitled to seek equitable relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the principle of delay and latches would equally apply to the petitioner.

The said contention is stated to be rejected for two reasons. Firstly, the O.A, was disposed of by following the directions issued in O.A.No.8905 of 2008. The said decision of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.33594 of 2013 and this Court stayed the operation of order of the Tribunal. In view of the stay granted by this Court in the main O.A., the Tribunal was not inclined to proceed further with the contempt applications and disposed of the contempt applications, by order dated 30.10.2015 granting liberty to the applicants to take appropriate steps after disposal of W.P.No.33594 of 2013.

Secondly, having regard to the fact that W.P.No.33594 of 2013 was filed challenging the order in O.A.No.8905 of 2008 and the said writ petition was pending till 06.04.2021, it cannot be said that petitioner was negligent in asserting his right and seek enforcement of the directions of the Tribunal and kept quiet unreasonably for long time without any justification. Till 6.04.2021, the main order of the Tribunal was stayed by this Court and therefore, he could not have taken steps to file contempt case or institute the writ petition before this Court seeking enforcement of directions of the Tribunal, more so, having regard to the view taken by the Tribunal, in batch of contempt applications, by order dated 30.10.2015.

In the peculiar facts of this case, it cannot be said any more that there was inordinate delay in prosecuting the grievance of the petitioner. Furthermore, gratuity is payable to the employees based on the service rendered by them and contributions made towards gratuity. A retired employee is entitled as a matter of right to receive the gratuity amount on his retirement. The Revised Pension Rules provide payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity. The right to receive full gratuity amount is denied to the petitioner on the illegal ground that excess amount was paid to him under G.O.Ms.No.330, even though, the Full Bench of this Court in a case reported in State Language Teachers’ Association, Hyderabad and Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2010) 4 ALT 145 held that no recovery should be effected. Thus, the respondents are precluded from taking a plea that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay, when they themselves have violated the directions of the Full Bench of this Court prosecuted avoidable litigation and illegally kept the money due to the petitioner for a very long time.

The writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refund the gratuity amount with-held by them, within eight weeks (8) from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.