Telangana High Court
T. Krishna Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 21 July, 2023
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.43447 of 2018
ORDER:
The writ petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed with the following prayer:
"......to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the a) action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of annual grade increment falls due on the day following retirement date as conferred under G.O.Ms.No.235 Finance and Planning (FW-FR.II) Department dated 27.10.1998 to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are retired prior to issuance above said G.O. as is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.A.No.1950 of 2001, b) to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the rejection order vide Memo No 11054/Pts.VII/2015-2 Dated 18.06.2016 in respect of 1st petitioner is as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and the same is liable to be set a side and c) to declare that denying a right mere on technical grounds which is already accrued during employment is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and d) Consequently declare that the petitioners are entailed to get a benefit of annual grade increment as conferred under G.O.Ms.No.235 Finance and Planning (FW-FR II) Department, dated 27.10.1998 though they retired prior to issuance of the said G.O. by directing the respondent to revise and re-fix their pay duly awarding annual grade increment from the date of retirement and pay all pensionary benefits such as pension, gratuity and encashment leave and to pass...." (reproduced verbatim)
2. Heard Sri A.V.V.S.Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services- I, II and III representing the respondents and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners worked as regular Government employees in different departments and retired by attaining the age of Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 2 superannuation. The petitioners were deprived of annual grade increments falls due on the day following their retirement, though they have discharged their duties for the entire twelve months. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.235 Finance & Planning (FW-FR.II) Department, dated 27.10.1998, considered the recommendations made by the Officers Committee and ordered that where an employee's date of increment falls due on the day following his retirement, he may be given the benefit of increment notionally, purely for the purpose of pensionary benefits, subject to the condition that this should not be considered for any other purposes. According to the said G.O., the employees, who are deprived their annual grade increment due to retirement from service just one day prior, are entitled to get the annual grade increment for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The petitioners herein also retired from service one day prior to their date of annual grade increment and as such they are entitled for the benefit extended by way of G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 27.10.1998. Further, the Government has categorically stated that the employees, who fall under the scope and purview of G.O.Ms.No.235 are rare and few and that too, they rendered complete twelve months of service in one year. In spite of the same, the respondents did not grant or Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 3 extend the said annual grade increment to the petitioners herein on the ground that the petitioners retired from service prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.235, which is illegal and arbitrary. All the pensioners belong to one class and there cannot be discrimination in granting benefit which arises out of their employment. By virtue of the said G.O.Ms.No.235, the employees, who retired from service after the retirement of the petitioners herein are drawing more pension than that of the petitioners. Denying the benefit of annual grade increment on the basis of their date of retirement, on the ground that they retired prior to the issuance of said G.O., is a clear discrimination in payment of emoluments to the petitioners, including regular pension, till their last breath. In fact, there is no restriction of applicability of G.O.Ms.No.235 to the employees who retired prior to the date of issuance of the said G.O. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara vs. State of India1, wherein it was held that when pension rules are amended, liberalised pension scheme becomes operative to all the pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled for a liberalised view and are entitled 1 1983(1) SCC 305 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 4 to an increment just a day next to the date of their retirement. Further, the Government issued a clarification Memo No.18541- C/501/FR.II/05, dated 03.08.2005 with regard to the payment of increment after completion of one year service. According to the said memo, every employee, who rendered the complete twelve months of service, is eligible for one increment whether or not he is alive. Though the petitioners are fully eligible and are entitled to get their annual grade increment which fell due on the very next day of their retirement, the respondents are not justified in denying the same. It is settled law that an accrued right cannot be denied on technical grounds. In a similar case, the erstwhile High Court of A.P., in W.P.No.14524 of 2001, directed the respondents therein to implement G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 27.10.1998 and pay pensionary benefits to the petitioners therein by granting notional increment. Aggrieved by the same, respondents therein preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in W.P.No.1950 of 2001 and the said Division Bench of this Court, after hearing elaborate arguments of both the sides, dismissed the appeal by upholding the order passed by the learned single Judge. The above said judgment of the Division Bench is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioners herein and they Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 5 are entitled to get the same relief. In another case, where the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.87 (Finance & Planning (FW- Pen.I) Department, dated 25.05.1998 for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn instead of last ten months average emoluments, some of the employees approached the Administrative Tribunal by filing O.S.No.50303 of 1999 and the Tribunal passed orders in favour of the employees holding that the employees retired prior to 25.05.1998 and living on the date of issuance of the said G.O. are entitled for the arrears from 25.05.1998. The writ petition filed challenging the order passed in the said O.A. came to be dismissed by this Court, so also, the SLP filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner No.1 submitted representation to the head of the department to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.235. However, the same was rejected vide memo dated 18.06.2016 on the ground that he retired from service prior to the issuance of the said G.O. and that it is an old case. By virtue of non- sanctioning of annual grade increment to which the petitioners are eligible under G.O.Ms.No.235, they are receiving less pension every month which is continuous and recurring cause of action and as such the same is not hit by limitation and ultimately prayed to allow the writ petition as prayed for.
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 6
4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counters. It is averred in the counter filed by respondent No.1 that though it is a fact that a limited number of employees that may benefit and the consequential financial implication would have weighed with the Government while considering to extend the benefit of an additional increment, albeit and in that effect, limited for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It was never the intention of the Government that all the settled cases of pensioners over the last several decades should be again re-opened and re-worked in this regard, as the same would be an administrative nightmare in the absence of availability of records and other relevant data. The application of G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 27.10.1998 prospectively, would definitely stand scrutiny of the equality clause under Article 14 of the constitution of India, as all the pensioners whose dates of retirement are spread over several decades cannot be brought under single classification for all purposes. The contention of the petitioners tantamount to placing an unreasonable interpretation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India, as there are bound to be different in the applicability of rules and the quantum of pension depending upon various periods during which the employees served and Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 7 retired and the rules governing their service conditions as per the policy changes brought about in the laws and rules enacted from time to time. In fact, G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 27.10.1998 is intended to give the benefit of service which counts for an increment to an employee, though his date of increment falls on the day next after his retirement date. It is in this sense that the same has been termed as notional in the said G.O. In effect, it is an increment added to the pay on the date of retirement of the employees, which consequently has a beneficial effect on the quantum of pension. Such benefits are generally given with prospective effect, but not with retrospective effect. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1950 of 2001 cannot be invoked to question the legality of G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 27.10.1998. Further, the clarification memo, dated 03.08.2005 relied on by the petitioners has no bearing or relevancy on the subject matter of this writ petition. G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 27.10.1998 was issued by way of gratuitous benefit for the purpose of retirement benefits. There are several service benefits, which are modified or enhanced from time to time during the service of an employee and as a policy, the same are always accorded with prospective effect, as it is not possible to go on reopening Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 8 and recalculating the benefits or emoluments of an employee in respect of his past service. There are no merits in the writ petition and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. It is averred in the counter filed by respondent No.3 that in the year 1998, the Government had taken policy decision to grant increment to the retired employees, who completed one year of service and his date of increment falls on the very next day of retirement. This policy was given with prospective effect, i.e., from 27.10.1998. In strict interpretation of the rules, one should be in service on the date of increment, but the Government granted exemption on humanitarian grounds to extend this benefit to the employees with prospective effect. Therefore, past cases cannot be reopened, which will make the settled matters unsettled and also impinge on the state exchequer. Therefore, the cases arising before the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.235 does not come under the purview of the said G.O. and as such, it does not amount to discrimination. The Government memo, dated 03.08.2005 relied on by the petitioner has no relevancy to this case as it relates to release of increment to the employees who have completed twelve months incremental service before their death without Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 9 expecting future service. In any event, G.O.Ms.No.235 has no retrospective effect and as such the benefit under the said G.O. cannot be extended in favour of the petitioners who retired prior to the issuance of said G.O. The petitioners have not made out any case qua the relief sought by them in this writ petition and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and examined the entire record. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are retired Government employees. The following table indicates the date of retirement/last working day and the annual grade increment due to them.
Date of Annual grade
S.No. Name of the retirement and increment due
employee last working date
day
1. T.Krishna Rao 31.08.1997 01.09.1997
2. G.Venkateswar Rao 31.01.1995 01.02.1995
3. T.Krishna 31.08.1995 01.09.1995
4. R.Bala Sunder Raj 30.06.1996 01.07.1996
5. K.Mallesham 31.10.1996 01.11.1996
6. Lakshmi Rajam 31.10.1996 01.11.1996
7. T.Rama Krishna Rao 28.02.1997 01.03.1997
8. V.Laxmaiah 31.10.1995 01.11.1995
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
W.P.No.43447 of 2018
10
9. P.Prabhakar 31.12.1994 01.01.1995
7. The core contention of the petitioners is that though the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 27.10.1998 granting benefit of annual grade increment notionally for the employees whose date of increment falls due on the very next day of their retirement, for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the petitioners are being deprived of the benefit extended under the said G.O. Here, it is apt to extract G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 27.10.1995, which reads as follows:
"ORDER:
Orders were issued in the reference 1st read above constituting a Committee of Officers to examine matters relating to pensioners.
2. Among others the Committee has recommended that:-
"Where an employee's date of increment falls due on the day following his retirement, he may be given the benefit of increment notionally purely for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as such cases may be rare and few".
3. Government after careful consideration of the above recommendation of officers Committee hereby order that, where an employee's date of increment falls due on the day following his retirement, he may be given the benefit of increment notionally, purely for the purpose of pensionary benefits, subject to the condition that this should not be considered for any other purpose.
4. These orders come into force with immediate effect."
8. A bare perusal of the above extracted G.O.Ms.No.235 makes it clear that where an employee's date of increment falls due on the day following his retirement, he should be given the Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 11 increment notionally, purely for the purpose of pensionary benefits, subject to the condition that this should not be considered for any purpose.
9. Admittedly, the petitioners have completed one year of service and as such it is clear that they have accrued a right during such period and only the enforcement of the said right in the form of payment remains to be fulfilled. Similar situation came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.Banerjee vs. Union of India2, wherein the petitioner therein sought voluntary retirement and was so retired on 31.12.1985. He claimed the benefit of IV Pay Commission, which came into force with effect from 01.01.1986. The question that fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court was that whether the petitioner therein could be said to have been in service as on 01.01.1986 or ceased to be in service for all practical purposes on 31.12.1985 itself. Referring to that contention, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"The question that arises for the consideration is whether the petitioner was retired on 1-1-1986. We have already extracted the order of this Court dated 6-12-1985 whereby the petitioner was permitted to retired voluntarily from the service of the Registry of the Supreme Court with effect from the forenoon on 1-1-1986. It is true that in view of the proviso to Rule 5(2) of the Rules, the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary for the day on which he actually retired. But, in our opinion, that has no bearing on the question as to the date of retirement. Can it be said that the 2 AIR 90 SC 285 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 12 petitioner retired on 31.12.1985?. The answer must be in the negative. Indeed, Mr.Anil Dev Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, frankly, conceded that the petitioner could not be said to have retired on 31-12-1985. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had retired from the service of this Court on 31-12-1985. That it must be held that the petitioner had retired with effect from 1-1-1986 and that is also order of this Court dated 6.12.1985. It may be that the petitioner had retired with effect from the forenoon of 1-1-1986 as per the said order of this Court, that is to say, as soon as 1-1-1986 had commenced the petitioner retired. But, nevertheless, it has to be said that the petitioner had retired on 1-1-1985 and not on 31-12- 1985. In the circumstances, the petitioner comes within the purview of paragraph 17.3. of the recommendation of the pay Commission.
Following the above principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh took a similar view in respect of an identical matter in Union of India vs. V.R.Malakondiah3. The Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under:
5. The fact that the emoluments of a Government servant have to taken as the basic pay, which he was receiving immediately, before his retirement, is not at all in controversy. Similarly, the proposition that an increment accrues from the date of following that on which it is earned is also not in dispute. Increment is pay is a condition of service, in a way, it is a reward for the unblemished service rendered by an employee, which gets transformed into a right. Once an employee renders the service for the period, which takes with it an increment, the same cannot be denied to him/her. It is not in dispute that both the respondents rendered unblemished retirements. On account of rendering the unblemished service, they became entitled for increment in their emoluments."
The ground on which the petitioners denied the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.235 is that they were not in service to receive the said benefit. In stricto sensu, such a hyper technical plea cannot be accepted, inasmuch as with the completion of one 3 2002 (4) ALT 550 (D.B.) Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 13 year of service, an employee becomes entitled for increment, which is not withheld otherwise. After completion of one year service, a right accrues on the petitioners and what remains thereafter is only its enforcement in the form of payment. In fact, there is no rule, which stipulates that an employee must continue in service for extending him/her the benefit for the service already rendered by him. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision cited supra, are clearly applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in this case also, admittedly, the petitioners have completed one year of service and as such, the right already accrued on them and what remains thereafter is only the enforcement in the form of payment. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners did not receive periodical increments during the previous years or that their increments were withheld at any point of time. Further, there is no denial in the counters filed by respondent Nos.1 and 3 that the petitioners rendered unblemished services.
10. An identical situation came up before a Division Bench of this Court in Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 14 Devastanams, Tirupathi vs. B.M.Subbuswamy4, wherein a retired employee sought a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not implementing G.O.Ms.No.235 and not paying him the pensionary benefits after granting notional increment as laid down in the said G.O. The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration of the allegations, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondents therein to implement G.O.Ms.No.235 and pay pensionary benefits by granting notional increments to the petitioner therein. Challenging the same, the respondents therein filed Writ Appeal No.1950 of 2001. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court having examined the matter in great detail held as follows:
"13. On a reading of the aforesaid G.O., it envisages clearly that the Government by accepting the recommendations of Officers Committee for simplification and liberalization of an existing Pension Rules, issued orders for the purpose of extending the benefit of increment notionally for pensionary benefit and it was enforced with immediate effect. Therefore, it is not for the first time any new pensionary scheme is being introduced or brought into existence conferring a right for pension as such. But it is only an acceptance of recommendation extending the benefit of increment notionally for the purpose of pensionary benefits under a scheme in vogue. The benefit of increment is added for calculating pensionary benefits, and therefore, such liberalization as has been extended to by the Government on the recommendation made by the committee cannot be termed as if conferring a new pensionary benefit to any of the employees. The entire object apparently appears to be to enable the employee to avail such benefit of increment which falls to on the day following his retirement. Therefore, it is not a fresh scheme. No-doubt, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground of discrimination since similar benefit was extended to one Mr. D.Changal Raju. It is now brought to notice that in fact, said Raju retired much later to the said G.O. and therefore, the petitioner cannot place himself on par with him, since he retired much prior to the issuance of the said G.O. However, the main dispute boils down to the aspect as to whether such benefit can be extended to the petitioner, since he retired earlier to the G.O. In V.Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay (supra) while considering the prospective amendment conferring enhanced pension under a new formula of computation of pension, the Supreme Court held the principle that: "if the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he 4 2006(1) ALD 591 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 15 survives till the time of subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension. He would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation, the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred. However, if an employee at the time of his retirement is not eligible for earning pension and stands outside the class of pensioners, and subsequently by amendment of the relevant pension rules any beneficial umbrella of pension scheme is extended to cover a new class of pensioners and by then the erstwhile non-pensioner might have survived, then only if such extension of pension scheme to erstwhile non-pensioners is expressly made retrospective by the authorities promulgating such scheme; the erstwhile non-pensioner who has retired prior to the advent of such extended pension scheme can claim benefit of such a new extended pension scheme. If such new scheme is prospective only, old retirees non-pensioners cannot get the benefit of such a scheme even if they survive such new scheme. They will remain outside its sweep".
14. From the above, it is clear that in spite of such employees who on the date of retirement totally fall outside class of eligible pensioners, any subsequent variation, addition or denial by any amendment could not be extended. Thereby, distinction was sought to be drawn between two classes, one who is entitled under the scheme on the date of retirement and another though retired, can claim under a new scheme. Further while considering the benefit of amended pension scheme available to the old retirees, it was held that the claim for eligibility and non-eligibility falls relevant at the time of his retirement and he would get benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order. Since it is not an enhancement of prior existing benefits and therefore, no distinction arises. In T.N. Electricity Board v. R. Veerasam, (1999) 3 SCC 414, while considering a case of pension scheme with a prospective introduction, it was held that it cannot be extended to all those employees who already stood retired and availed the benefit under a scheme before such introduction of new pension scheme since such employees formed a separate class. In Subrata Sen v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 71, while considering non-contributory pension scheme and revision thereof, the Supreme Court held that: "in this case the Pension Scheme including the liberalized scheme available to the employees is non- contributory in character. The petitioners were not required to contribute any amount for getting pension. Their right to get pension is crystallized as per the rules. Thus payment of pension was the liability undertaken by the Company under the rules and whenever becomes due and payable, is to be paid. May be that in the present case, the trust for Pension Fund is created for income tax purposes or for smooth payment of pension, but that would not affect the liability of the employer to pay monthly pension calculated as per the rules on retirement from service and this retirement benefit is not based on availability of Pension Fund. There is no question of pensioners dividing the Pension Fund or affecting the pro rata share on addition of new members to the Scheme. Right to get pension is obviously different from getting annuity on the basis of accumulated contribution. The Rules for grant of pension provide that an employee mentioned in a specified category shall automatically be a member of the pension fund and is entitled to get pension on the date of his retirement. Amount of pension is to be determined as per the rules. That rule is modified and the petitioners seek relief on the basis of the amended rule on the ground that there cannot be any discrimination between the employees who retired prior to or after a particular date, as held in Nakara case. In case of an employee governed under the Pension Scheme, relations with the employer merely undergo a change, but are not snapped altogether. There is no new scheme of payment of pension, but it is only a revision of the existing Pension scheme of payment of pension, but it is only a revision of the existing Pension Scheme". In State of W.B. v. W.B. Government pensioners Associations, (2002) 2 SCC 179, where a parity in Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 16 pension and revision of pay was made for applying pre and post retirees, it was held that in the absence of any amendment to the definition of "emoluments", pre-revision retirees were not entitled to parity with post- revision retirees in the amount of pension. In Pensioners Association, Ex- Assam Oil Officers v. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 265, considering the revision of pension and it is application to previous retirees, it was held that they are entitled to the benefit under the said revised pension scheme in spite of the transfer of the management. In Hari Chand v. Faridabad Complex admn, (2005) 4 SCC 592, a new pension scheme which has been introduced, it was held that those who retired prior to its introduction, are not entitled to the pensionary benefits."
Thus, from the above authoritative pronouncements, it only follows that as long as there is no introduction of any scheme afresh, any change made in regard to the existing scheme, which was applicable to the employees, though retired, necessarily applies with all such variations and such a retired employee would be entitled to the extended benefits. In the instant case, it is amply clear that neither a new scheme has been introduced nor any new right is sought to be conferred on the petitioners. It is only a little liberalisation extended to, in a peculiar situation, where the employee becomes entitled to an increment just a day next to the date of his retirement. Such an increment benefit is notionally sought to be added for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits under the scheme. Further, in the said G.O.Ms.No.235 itself, there is a specific mention that the cases of this nature may be rare and few. Further, when a right is accrued by the petitioners and only the enforcement of the said right in the form of payment remains to Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 17 be fulfilled and when the Government accepts the same and issues a Government order, it is not open to the respondents to contend that such an exercise would be an administrative nightmare in the absence of availability of records and other relevant data. It is also not proper on the part of the respondents to contend that the contentions raised by the petitioners therein tantamounts to placing an unreasonable interpretation of articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is clear that the pensioners, who are already drawing the pension, cannot be denied the revision of pension on the basis of the revised formula contained in G.O.Ms.No.235. It cannot be said that new scheme was introduced for the first time. Viewed thus, following the decision of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B.M.Subbuswamy's case (4 supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the benefit extended in G.O.Ms.No.235, Finance & Planning (FW-FR.II) Department, dated 27.10.1998, is only a little liberalisation extended to in a peculiar situation where the employee becomes entitled to an increment just a day next to the date of retirement and as increment benefit is notionally sought to be added for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefit. In view of the same, the writ petition shall Justice Juvvadi Sridevi W.P.No.43447 of 2018 18 succeed. The petitioners are entitled for the relief sought by them in this writ petition.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of annual grade increment as conferred under G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 27.10.1998 though they retired from service prior to the issuance of said G.O. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to revise and refix the pay of the petitioners duly awarding the annual grade increment from the date of the retirement and pay all pensionary benefits, such as, pension, gratuity and encashment of leave, etc. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 21.07.2023 ssp