CH RAMULU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When petitioner was working as Senior Assistant, on 01.12.2000, the Anti Corruption Bureau laid trap alleging that petitioner was involved in corrupt practices. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. Petitioner was shown as accused in C.C.No.43 of 2001 on the file of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. On the said allegation, petitioner was placed under suspension on 03.01.2001. While under suspension, petitioner was allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.05.2003. By judgment dated 16.11.2005, the ACB Court convicted the petitioner. In view of the said conviction, G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 04.04.2006 was issued stopping all retirement benefits to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, Crl.A.No.1798 of 2005 was preferred before this Court. By judgment dated 24.04.2013, this Court acquitted the petitioner. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the said judgment was dismissed on 10.07.2017.

(2.) After the acquittal granted by this Court, petitioner submitted representation requesting to grant all benefits as per his entitlement. Alleging inaction on the representation, petitioner filed O.A.No.1338 of 2014 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. However on 25.08.2015, a decision was communicated holding that since the SLP is preferred, till the SLP is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, pensionary benefits would not be paid to the petitioner. After the dismissal of SLP, petitioner made representation for release of all retirement benefits. By Government Memo dated 03.10.2017 orders are passed withdrawing G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 04.04.2006 and dropping all further proceedings. The Engineer-in-Chief was also directed to take necessary action to release the pensionary benefits to petitioner. Accordingly, on 14.11.2017 the Engineer-in-Chief passed orders directing the Superintending Engineer, to implement the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner. On 28.02.2019 pension payment order was passed.

(3.) At this stage, the grievance of the petitioner is three fold. Firstly, the pension payment order refers to 1999 Pay Scales and subsequent revision of pay scales is not applied to him; secondly, there is inordinate delay in payment of pensionary benefits causing lot of hardship and suffering and therefore petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payments; and thirdly petitioner request to commute pension was erroneously rejected.