Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ragam Venkateswara Rao vs Union Of India on 16 April, 2025
APHC010113482018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION No. 5325/2018
Between:
1. RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA
RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8,
KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530 002
2. SOMAYAJULA SATYANARAYANA, S/O. SHRI (LATE)
SURYANARAYANA, AGED 67 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.2, HILL VIEW
APARTMENTS, SEETHAMMADHARA N.E., VISAKHAPATNAM-530
013 CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
3. VOLETI VENKATA NARASIMHA MURTY, S/O LATE NARASIMHAM,
AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
4. PEMMARAJU VENAKA VITTAL, S/O LATE P.V.CHALAPATHI RAO,
AGED 67 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
5. ANDEY ASHOK KUMAR, S/O LATE A.APPA RAO, AGED 68 YEARS,
CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE)
VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE,
115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
6. DWARAM VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O LATE D.THAMMAYYA,
AGED 62 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
7. SARATHI TRIPATHI, S/O LATE MADAN MOHAN TRIPATHI, AGED
63 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
8. DANGETI VEERA PRASAD GUPTA, S/O LATE D.SUBRAHMANYAM
GUPTA, AGED 64 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM
VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA,
AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA
2
NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
9. KARRI SURYANARAYANA, S/O LATE K.HARINARAYANA, AGED 66
YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
10. ARISETTY PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O LATE A.SAMBHAMURTY,
AGED 67 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
11. NATTI ANANDA RAO, S/O LATE N.VENKATA SWAMY, AGED 65
YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
12. UPPALAPATI SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE, S/O LATE U.HANUMA
RAO, AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA
RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O
201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-
530
13. DANGETI KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O LATE RAMAMOHAN RAO, AGED
68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
14. SURAPANENI SAI RAMA KRISHHA PRASAD, S/O LATE
S.PRABHAKARA RAO, AGED 66 YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM
VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA,
AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA
NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
15. VISARAPU ATCHARAO, S/O LATE V.APPALASWAMY, AGED 68
YEARS, CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
16. DUKKA APPA RAO, S/O LATE D.NARASINGA RAO, AGED 65
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
17. VITTANALA ADINARAYANA, S/O LATE V.VENKANNA, AGED 65
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
18. KILIANI SATYANARAYANA, S/O K.CHALLA RAO, AGED 65 YEARS
CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE)
VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE,
115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
19. CHINTHAKAYALA SURYA SANKARA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O LATE
CH.V.SURYANARAYANA, AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM
3
VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA,
AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA
NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
20. SENAPATHI RAMA SATYA ESWARA RAO, S/O LATE CHINNAYYA,
AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
21. BALUEPALLI MADHU SUDHAN, S/O SAMBASIVA SASTRY, AGED
69 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
22. GUDLA RAMI REDDY, S/O LATE G.LAKSHMAYYA, AGED 65
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
23. VETCHA SREERAMA MURTY, S/O LATE BULLI VEERASWAMY,
AGED 62 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
24. VISWANADHA NARASIMHA MURTY, S/O LATE V.S.NARAYANA,
AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
25. PIILA TRIPURANTHAKA PATRUDU, S/O LATE P.NARAYANA
PATRUDU, AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM
VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA,
AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA
NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
26. KOLLURU VENKATADRI SARMA, S/O K.KAMAVADHANULU, AGED
69 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
27. PULIGADDA VIDYADHAR, S/O. P.MURALIDHARA RAO, AGED 61
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
28. VEDULA BADRI NARAYANA MURTY, S/O LATE V.NARASIMHA
CHENELU CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
29. PATRUNI VARA PRASADA RAO, S/O LATE P. SATYANARAYANA
MURTY, AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA
RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O
201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-
530
4
30. KILLI NAGESWARA RAO, S/O LATE K.JAGANNADHAM, AGED 64
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
31. KARUPOTHU SPURGEON, S/O LATE JOHN PHILIP. AGED 65
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
32. MANUKONDA BHASKARA RAO, S/O LATE M.PRABHUDAS, AGED
65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
33. ASHOK KUMAR PAL, S/O LATE KRISHNA CHANDRA PAL, AGED
70 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
34. GOGULA RAMA DURGA PRASADA RAO, S/O LATE G.CHINA
SATYANARAYANA, AGED 62 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM
VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA,
AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA
NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
35. ARANI RAMANA RAO, S/O A.ANANTHA RAO, AGED 69 YEARS
CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE)
VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE,
115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
36. GIDDI NARASIMHA MURTY, S/O G.ARJANNA, AGED 63 YEARS
CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE)
VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE,
115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
37. KADIYALA BUTCHIBABU, S/O LATE K.V. RAMAYYA, AGED 66
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
38. MOHAMMED GOUSE MOINUDDIN, S/O LATE M.MOHIUDDIN,
AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
39. POTHABATHULA MURALI, S/O P. SRIRAMA MUIRTY, AGED 62
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
40. KARANAM UMAMAHESWARA RAO, S/O LATE GURU NAIDU, AGED
62 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
5
41. RAMANI MOHAN BISWAS, S/O LATE UPENDRANATH BISWAS,
AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
42. CHAGANTI GOURIPATHI RAO, S/O LATE C.S. RAMACHANDRA
RAO, AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA
RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O
201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-
530
43. SETTALURI SWAMINADH, S/O S.PARDHASARADHI, AGED 62
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
44. AKUNDI VENKATA KAMA SASTRY, S/O A.JAGANNADHA RAO,
AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
45. THADIMALLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA RAO, S/O LATE
SURYANARAYANA RAO, AGED 66 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM
VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA,
AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA
NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
46. ITHIGANI NARASIMHA GOURI SANKAR, S/O LATE I.NOOKARAJU,
AGED 62 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
47. GEDELA SATYANARAYANA, S/O G.APPALA NAIDU, AGED 62
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
48. CHALLAKONDA PRASADA RAO, S/O LATE BHANOJI RAO, AGED
68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
49. ANNAVARAPU BHUJANGA RAO, S/O A.SREERAMULU, AGED 63
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
50. GANAPATIBHOTLA RAMA NARAYANA, S/O LATE
G.V.SATYANARAYANA, AGED 66 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM
VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA,
AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA
NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
51. TAMMINANA PRASADA RAO, S/O LATE T.YERAKANNA, AGED 63
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
6
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
52. PANAGANAPALLI VENKATA PADMINI, W/O P.SATYANARAYANA
MURTY, AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA
RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O
201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-
530
53. BALIVADA KAILASARAO PATNAIK, S/O LATE B.SUNDARA
NARAYANA, AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM
VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA,
AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA
NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
54. CHEBOLI SUBBA RAO, S/O LATE C. RAMA MURTHY, AGED 64
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
55. NADIPALLI RATANLAL GANDHI, S/O LATE N.VISHANADHAM,
AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
56. KOTNI ESWARA RAO, S/O LATE K.SATYAM, AGED 66 YEARS
CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE)
VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE,
115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
57. KOMMU KIRTHI, S/O K.BALARAMA KRISHNA, AGED 56 YEARS
CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE)
VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE,
115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
58. BUDDHARAJU VENKATAPATHI RAJU, S/O LATE B.NARAYANA
RAJU, AGED 68 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA
RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O
201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-
530
59. MADA HEMA SUNDARAIAH, S/O M.VENKATA SETTY, AGED 69
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
60. KALIDINDI VISWANADHA RAJU, S/O LATE K.SURYANARAYANA
RAJU, AGED 63 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA
RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O
201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-
530
61. BONDA SATYANARAYANA MURTY, S/O LATE B.SRIHARI RAO,
AGED 64 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
7
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
62. PATIBANDLA ANANTHA VENKATA RAO, S/O LATE
P.V.NARASINGA RAO, AGED 63 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM
VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA,
AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA
NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
63. KORRAPATI RADHA KRISHNA, S/O K.SURYA NARAYANA RAO, 64
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
64. CHENNA RAJESWARI, S/O LATE CHENNA DHARMARAO, AGED 67
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
65. APPIKONDA HARINADHA RAO, S/O LATE LAKSHMANA RAO,
AGED 69 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
66. PARAVASTU PATTABJHIRAMAN GOVINDACHARI, S/O LATE
P.SRIRAMACHARI, AGED 62 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM
VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA,
AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA
NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
67. S.SUBBARATHINAM, S/O LATE SHANMUGAM, AGED 63 YEARS
CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE)
VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE,
115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
68. ARUP KUMAR GHOSH, S/O LATE PRABAT KUMAR GHOSH, AGED
65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
69. GOURANGA MUZAUMDAR, S/O LATE AMULYA BHUSHAN
MAZUMDAR, AGED 71 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM
VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA,
AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA
NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
70. MUNGAMURI SAI PRASADA RAO, S/O LATE M.V. RAJA RAO,
AGED 66 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
71. P.DALAYYA REDDY, S/O P.REDDY, AGED 63 YEARS CARE OF
SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA
RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8,
KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
72. VARASALA SAMPADA RAO, S/O V. RAMA SWAMY, AGED 66
8
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
73. S.VICTOR SAGAYA RAJ, S/O LATE V.SELVARAJ, AGED 61 YEARS
CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE)
VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE,
115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
74. K.MADHAVA RAO, S/O LATE K.SURYANARAYANA CARE OF SRI
RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA
RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8,
KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
75. PACHIPENTA VENKATA NARAYANA RAO, S/O LATE
P.SYAMASUNDARA RAO, AGED 66 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM
VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA,
AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA
NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
76. M.BHASKARA RAO, S/O LATE M.GOPALA RAO, AGED 63 YEARS
CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE)
VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE,
115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
77. TADIMALLA SYAMALA KUMARI, W/O T.LAKSHMI NARAYANA RAO,
AGED 60 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
78. MEENAKSHI SUBHADRA, W/O LATE N.S.PILLAI, AGED 65 YEARS
CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O. SHRI.(LATE)
VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201, BALAJI CASTLE,
115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
79. VARIGALA KRISHNAVENI, W/O V.V. RAMANA RAO, AGED 61
YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
80. SRINIVASAN RAGHURAMA KRISHNAN, S/O LATE C.SRINIVASAN,
AGED 63 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
81. NOKALA SURYA PRAKASH RAO, S/O LATE N.BHASKARA RAO,
AGED 65 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO
S/O. SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
82. VELIVETI VENKATA RAO, S/O LATE V.KAMESHWARA RAO, AGED
67 YEARS CARE OF SRI RAGAM VENKATESWARA RAO S/O.
SHRI.(LATE) VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O 201,
BALAJI CASTLE, 115-7-8, KRISHNA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNA-530
83. DCI RETIRED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION, (REGD. NO.
9
677/2009), FLAT NO. 201, BALAJI CASTLE, 15-7-8, KRISHNA
NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY SOMAYAJULA SATYANARAYANA, S/O
SHRI (LATE) SURYANARAYANA, AGED 67 YEARS, R/O
VISAKHAPATNAM
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRY AND PUBLIC
ENTERPRISES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, PUBLIC
ENTERPRISES BHAWAN, BLOCK NO.14, CGO COMPLEX, NEW
DELHI-110 003, REP. BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
2. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, PARIVAHAN BHAWAN,
1, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 1, REP. BY ITS JOINT
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
3. DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED DCIL, (A
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING), (REPRESENTED BY
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND BOARD OF
DIRECTORS) DREDGE HOUSE, PORT GYMKHANA CLUB ROAD,
PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 530001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M KESAVA RAO
2. K UDAYA SRI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
2. J SUDHEER
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:
".... a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ i) declaring the letter No.DCl/HR/SE/2017, dated. 07.06.2017 including Reminder-I vide letter dated 29.01.2018 and other similar letters, notifying the recovery of excess payment towards the encashment of leave (PL/HPL), at the time of superannuation/resignation, as illegal and arbitrary and (ii) direct the respondents to transfer the amounts of the petitioners flowing 10 out of the extension of Revision of Pay Scales, 2007 to LIC without any adjustments forthwith and (iii) direct the respondents to pay dues of annuity pension together with interest to the petitioners from the date of annuity pension till the actual payment of amounts by the respondent corporation to LIC and (iv) pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice."
2. Heard Sri M.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned Deputy Solicitor General and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri J.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the leave encashment amounts were paid to the Petitioners as per their leave credit that too after verification by the concerned departments. Learned counsel would further submit that no excess payments were made to the Petitioners. It is further submitted that the amended Circular No.36/2016 dated 10.11.2016 was given effect from 01.11.2016 and the Petitioners retired from service prior to 01.11.2016. As such, no excess payment towards leave encashment to the Petitioners was made. Hence, the question of recovering the amount from the Petitioners does not arise. It is further argued that, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih1 held that recovery of the amounts from the retired employees is wholly illegal and arbitrary. The said judgment specifies that the employer has no right to recover the payments even in the circumstances of payment made wrongly or mistakenly. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the Petitioners herein also. 1 AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 696 11
4. Learned Deputy Solicitor General would submit that Court may pass appropriate orders in the light of the memo and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, by reiterating the contents of the counter, would submit that as per the directions of the Ministry of Shipping vide its Letter No.SS-28030/2/2015-DCI, dated 25.01.2017, the Respondent-Corporation issued notices to all the retired employees including the Petitioners requesting them to refund the excess payment drawn towards leave encashment. Reminders were also sent in this regard, but none of the retired employees remitted the excess amount. As such, the Corporation had to adjust the excess amount from the pension corpus of the retired employees and balance, net of adjustment was released for the purchase of Annuity through LIC. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred to supra, relates to excess payment made to the employees in the form of salary or emoluments while in service but not to except payment of terminal benefits made after the retirement of the employees.
6. The contents of the affidavit filed by the Petitioners, in brief, are as follows:
(i) The Petitioners worked in Dredging Corporation of India Limited (DCIL) and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation prior to 01.11.2016. Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises issued Office Memorandum 12 No.2(70)/08-DPE(WC)GL-XVI/08, dated 26.11.2008 revising the scales of pay of Board level and below Board level executives and non-unionized Supervisors in Central Public Sector Enterprises w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and the same was notified by the Respondent-Corporation. The superannuation benefits payable to the employees of DCIL were approved by the competent authority vide letter No.SS-28036/1/2014-DCI, dated 05.06.2015 and the Petitioners were paid the said benefits including the encashment of the leaves i.e., HPL and PL. As per the amended provisions, all the employees of DCIL were permitted to encash PL and HPL, on retirement, subject to overall limit of 300 days and the said amendment has come into force w.e.f 01.11.2016.
(ii) That being so, Respondent-Corporation has given a given a notice bearing No.DCI/HR/SE/2017, dated 07.06.2017 stating that an amount of Rs.70,905/- was paid in excess of his entitlement and directing him to remit the same to the Corporation, failing which, the said amount will be adjusted against any dues payable to him by the Corporation. On that, a representation dated 26.06.2017 was given by the DCI Retired Employees' Welfare Association opposing the said action of DCIL. Without responding to the said representation, the Respondent-Corporation issued Reminder-I to Petitioner No.14 dated 29.01.2018 so also to the other Petitioners reiterating the earlier notice. Under the guise of the notices issued, the Respondent - Corporation have made recoveries from the pension corpus without putting the Petitioners on notice and thereby their pensionary benefits are drastically reduced.
13
(iii) Petitioners have retired from service prior to 01.11.2016 and as such, as per the service rules which were in existence at that time, they have been paid the accumulations of PL and HPL as per their eligibility. The service rules were amended subsequently w.e.f 01.11.2016 vide Circular No.36/2016, dated 10.11.2016 restricting the encashment of PL and HPL w.e.f 01.11.2016 only. The change of the downsizing of the limits cannot be made unilaterally, more so with retrospective effect. The Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Heavy Industry vide letter No.03(05)/2014-PE-XI, dated 15.10.2016 directed that no recovery of HPL encashment already allowed is to be made as it is not legally sustainable in view of the fact that employees were not put on advance notice and company allowed HPL even in situations other than on medical grounds. The said directive is squarely applicable to the Petitioners also.
7. At this stage, for ready reference, it is apposite to extract the service rules with regard to Half-Pay Leave (HPL) and Privilege Leave(PL) and its amendment, which read as follows:
"11.5 HALF-PAY LEAVE 20 days for each completed year of service which may be taken either on Medical Certificate or on private affairs. Commuted leave not exceeding half the amount of half-pay leave due may be granted on Medical Certificato subject to the following conditions:
a) When commuted leave is granted, twice the amount of such leave shall be debited against the half pay leave due.
b) The total earned leave and commuted leave taken in conjunction shall not exceed 240 days provided that no commuted leave may be granted under this rule unless the 14 authority competent to sanction leave has reason to believe that the employee shall return to duty on its expiry. Half pay leave may be combined with fully pay leave, but the maximum amount of half-pay leave admissible at a time, shall not exceed 240 days.
c) Half-pay leave for a period not exceeding 480 days, commuted to 240 days with full pay, can be encashed in the following circumstances ective from 01.04.90.
i) Retirement from Service
ii) Voluntary Retirement
iii) Cessation of service after attaining the age of 50 years
iv) Death of the employee
v) Leaving the service of DCI for joining other Public Sector Enterprises.
(Circular No.25/91, dated.10-7-91) (Circular No.18/2000, dated.24-08-2000) 11.11 ENCASHIVMENT OF PRIVILEGE LEAVE:
a) While in the service of the Corporation.
All employees are permitted to encash Privilege Leave standing at his/her credit, subject to condition that a minimum of 30 days is available at his/her credit. Encashment of Privilege Leave as above can be permitted once in a year and for 60 days at a time.
(Amendment Circular No.45/84, dt.1-12-1984)
b) At the time of leaving the services of the Corporation.
All employees may encash the balance of privilege leave standing to their credit subject to maximum of 300 days, including any period for adjustment of notice period etc., in case, the employee retires or leaves the service of the Corporation or dies while in service.
(Circular No.6/98, dt. 19-2-98 w.e.f. 1-7-97).
CIRCULAR No.36/2016 Sub: Amendment to the Rules Encashment of Pl, and HPI. Reg As may encash balance of privilege leave standing to their credit subject to maximum of 300 days, including mypnod for adjustment of notice etc., in case, the employee retires or leaves the service of the Corporation or dies while in service w.e.f.01.07.1997. Also as per the Rule 11.3 (c) of Service les, Half-pay Leave for a period not exceeding 480 days, commuted to 240 days with full pay, an be encashed in case, the 15 employee retires or leaves the service of the Corporation or dies while in service etc...
2 As per the guidelines of DPE, the existing provisions relating to encashment of leave will be amended in service rules as under:-
"All employees are permitted to encash Privilege leave and Half-Pay Leave on retirement subject over all limit of 300 days".
The above amendment comes into force with effect from 01.11.2016."
8. As seen from the material placed on record and the contentions raised on both sides, admittedly, Petitioners, on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., prior to 01.11.2016, were paid their eligible leave encashment by Respondent-Corporation in conformity with the Services Rules, prevailing at that time and duly approved by the Board of Directors of DCIL. The said amounts were paid after due process of verification by its HR Department, Internal Audit Department and the approval of the Competent Authority. As admitted by the Respondent - Corporation in their counter, the amended Circular No.36/2016, dated 10.11.2016 was given effect from 01.11.2016. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioners retired from service prior to the said Circular. The Respondent - Corporation cannot implement the said Rule w.e.f from 01.01.2006 i.e., with retrospective effect. Having informed the employees that they can avail leave encashment at 'actuals' without limiting it and took their productive services, on a subsequent date i.e., after their superannuation, the Respondents cannot recover it by restricting their leave to 300 days. Once the Respondent Corporation availed the service 16 of the Petitioners without allowing them to enjoy their leave, the Corporation owe an obligation to the Petitioners to the extent of that amount of leave. The said amounts should be considered as 'amounts earned' by the Petitioners for having contributed their services without availing the leave standing to their credit. Leave encashment is like a deferred wage. In such circumstances, the action of the Respondents to recover the alleged excess paid amount towards leave encashment, that too after their retirement, is illegal and arbitrary.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jogeswar Sahoo & Others vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Others2, while allowing the appeal preferred by the Employees/Stenographers therein, referred Rafiq's case (supra), wherein, with regard to the permissibility of the employer for recovery from the employees, it was held as under:
"It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-
IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
2 2025 INSC 449 17
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.
10. Further, Respondent - Corporation has amended the leave encashment Rule, in November, 2016 only and issued Office Memorandum No.36 dated 10.11.2016 clearly mentioning therein that the amended Rule will come into force w.e.f 01.11.2016. However, as evident from the Counter, at the behest of the C.A.G, Ministry of Shipping or Department of Public enterprises, the Respondent - Corporation had resorted to and recovered the alleged excess payments towards leave encashment from the Petitioners, that too after a lapse of several years from the date of their retirement, which was prior to 01.11.2016. This act of the Respondents, is in violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq's case (supra). The Respondent Corporation made the wrongful, illegal and unjust recoveries from out of the amounts of the Petitioners, who are retired employees, under new corporate pension scheme. Due to the said act, the amount of monthly pension of the Petitioners got drastically reduced. Moreover, it is not the case of the Respondents that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the Petitioners, the excess amounts have been paid. The leave encashment has been paid to the Petitioners as per the prevailing service rule at the time of their retirement. 18
11. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:16.04.2025 Dinesh 19 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.5325 of 2018 Dt.16.04.2025 Dinesh