Dr. V. Badri Nath vs. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. Instead, it addressed the petitioner's submission that he had already submitted representations to the respondents. The Court directed the second respondent to dispose of these pending representations expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law, preferably within four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it was not going into the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that when representations regarding delayed terminal benefits are pending, the concerned authority should be directed to dispose of them promptly and legally. The operative direction was to dispose of the representations within four weeks.

Facts

The petitioner, who retired from government service as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (now Deputy Commissioner (ST)) on 31.07.2017, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' action in not releasing his terminal benefits, including pension, encashment of earned leave, retirement gratuity, and commuted value of pension. The petitioner stated that no departmental proceedings were pending against him and that he had made multiple representations to the respondents between August 2018 and October 2019, which remained unaddressed. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in 'State of Kerala & others vs. M.Padmanabhan Nair' regarding the right to timely disbursement of terminal benefits. The High Court, on 19.12.2019, directed the second respondent to dispose of the pending representations expeditiously and in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' inaction in releasing the petitioner's terminal benefits upon his retirement is illegal and arbitrary, violating his rights as established in 'State of Kerala & others vs. M.Padmanabhan Nair'. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that pension and gratuity are valuable rights and not a bounty, and any culpable delay in their disbursement must be penalized. He argued that since no departmental proceedings were pending and no notice was served, he was entitled to all his terminal benefits. He further submitted that despite multiple representations, the respondents had failed to take any action, making their conduct illegal and arbitrary. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Government Pleader sought further time to file a counter-affidavit. The judgment does not record any other arguments from the respondents.