K VENUGOPAL REDDY Vs. C SUBBA RAO VICECHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR A P STATE AGRI INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whereas this Court in WPNo.4570 of 1998 by its order dated 19-2-1998 directed the respondent herein to accept the voluntary retirement application filed by the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.282 Agriculture and Co-operation (FPI) Department dated 8-7-1997 and give all terminal benefits to the petitioner by deducting the amount due to the Corporation only, as envisaged in the above Government Order and the Circular dated 11-7-1997, within a period of two months, the terminal benefits were paid to the petitioner only on 2-6-2001. In terms of the order of this Court the terminal benefits ought to have been paid to the petitioner on or before 18-4-1998. Thus, there is inordinate delay of 3 years 1 month and 14 days in implementing the order of this Court. The explanation offered by the respondent/ contemner in not implementing the order of this Court within the stipulated time is found in paragraph 14 of the affidavit filed by the respondent dated 7-6-2001. It reads-

(2.) This explanation could hardly be a valid ground or justification for the respondent-Corporation, or for that matter to this Court, to deny interest to the petitioner. At the most, the explanation offered by the respondent may constitute a tenable defence not to proceed against him departmental ly for the lapse because, according to the respondent, the Corporation did not receive the required sum of money in time from the Government to implement the order of this Court. The petitioner is in no way responsible for the delay nor contributed in any way for the delay either directly or indirectly. It will be totally unfair and unjust for the public authorities like the A.P. State Agro-Industries Development Corporation to withhold the legitimate voluntary retirement benefits due to the petitioner for an inordinate period of 3 years and more and say that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest simply because the money required was not received from the Government.

(3.) It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that there are certain charges levelled against the petitioner regarding his handling of the finances in the business of the Corporation resulting in loss to the tune of Rs.1 crore and odd. Suffice it to state that the said claim of the respondent remains as an allegation only. There was no impediment for the respondent-Corporation in proceeding against the petitioner-delinquent and complete the enquiry within a reasonable time and passing appropriate orders because in WP No.24970 of 1997 filed in this Court against the initiation of the disciplinary action against the petitioner, this Court directed that the enquiry might go on but the disciplinary authority shall not pass final orders awaiting further orders. It was submitted at the bar by Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the said writ petition was also withdrawn by the petitioner and the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn by order dated 4-7-2001.