Before Hon’ble Chairman of Human Right Commission, A.P.

Hyderabad
Complaint No.9962/2010

BETWEEN

G.Vasudevan,
Retd.Dy.Commissioner,
Endowments Department,
R/o.H.No.7-134/14,
Opp. Balaji Function Hall,
Near S.P.Nagar,
Malkajgiri, Hyderabad-500 047. …Petitioner

The Commissioner,
Endowments Department,
A.P., Hyderabad.
Office at: Tilak Road, Boggulakunta,
Ram kote, Hyderabad -500 001. …Respondent

Advancement of date of hearing from dt. - - 2011 to today i.e., on 21-3-2011.

Affidavit
G.Vasudevan, S/o, late Gopal Swamy, Retd.Dy.Commissioner, Endowments
Department, R/o.H.No.7-134/14,Opp. Balaji Function Hall, Near S.P.Nagar,
Malkajgiri, Hyderabad-500 047, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as
follows:

The present petition is being filed for not making payment of penisonary
benefits as per rule 9 (VII) (1) of the A.P. revised pension rules though one year
period lapsed after retirement from the service by the petitioner and stalled retrial
benefits by the respondent.

1) It is humbly submitted that the petitioner herein initially appointed as

Jr.Assistant on 05-09-1969 in the department and thereafter he promoted as a
Junior Assistant in the year 1979 and further promoted as Superintendent in the
year 1989 and as Asst. Commissioner in the year 2005 and finally promoted as
Dy.Commissioner on 26-09-2008 and posted as Executive officer at Sri Nettikanti
Anjaneya swamy temple, kasapuram village, guntakal mandal, anantapur district.
While working there, the petitioner retired from service on 31-03-2009 on
superannuation after 39 years long unblemished and legitimate service.

2) It if further submitted that the Departmental Promotion Committee which

constituted during the year 2008, cleared the name of the petitioner and
recommended for the promotion to the cadre of Dy.Commissioner (from the Cadre
of Asst.Commissioner) since there were no Departmental / Disciplinary
proceedings pending against him and accordingly he has been promoted as
Dy.Commissioner vide respondent’s proceeding No.E1/14934/2007 dt. 25-09-2008
and 26-09-2008. Due to clear chit given by the screening committee the petitioner
has been promoted. After joining as an Executive Officer in the Cadre of
Dy.Commissioner at Sri Nettikanti Anjaneya Swamy Temple, kasapuram village,
guntakal mandal anantapur district, he has rendered unblemished service.

3) It is further submitted that just prior to one month of retirement of the

petitioner, (i.e. from 22-07-2009 and onward) the Respondent has started framing
departmental proceedings against the petitioner on 3 different issues. All the
contents of the charge Memos were an after thought and moulded for the purpose
of harassing and maligning petitioner’s reputation. In two of three cases, the
charges were framed against the petitioner, almost after a lapse of (4) years. It is
submitted that the charge memos issued by the respondent, in his proceedings
No.E1/27981/2006 dt.22-07-2009 and No. E1/11041/2008, dt. 17-08-2009, were
flimsy charges against the petitioner, which not only baseless but also belated.

4) It is further submitted that the third charge Memo issued by the Respondent by
the proceedings no. E1/33777/2009, dated 25-08-2009, which is initiated just 5
days ahead of the retirement of the petitioner, was served on him on 02-09-2009
(through R.P.A.D) subsequent to retirement. This charges memo is absolutely after
thought and purposely created with an ill intention to harass and malign the
reputation of the petitioner. The main content of the charge memo dt.25-08-2009 is
that the petitioner failed to put the lands in public action. It is absolutely false
charge, as the petitioner already put the certain institution lands in public action as
per rule on 10-08-2009 and 11-08-2009 and submitted the proposals to the
respondent for his approval on 13-08-2009 itself. But the Respondent during
pendency of approval on 13-08-2009 acted contrary to the record thus framed the
untenable charges against the petitioner on 25-08-2009.

5) It is submitted that on receipt of the charge Memos (3) mentioned above, the
petitioner has submitted his explanations/ written statements of defence as called
for within the period stipulated and Respondent has appointed the Enquiry Officers
to conduct the enquiry into the charges leveled against the Petitioner. The
Petitioner has attended the enquiries before the Enquiry Officers long back. But
even till date the Enquiry Reports have not been submitted by the Inquiry Officer
& Respondent to the Government.

6) It is submitted that since the charges are pending against Petitioner, upon the
recommendation made by the Respondent, the Government was pleased to
sanction for payment of provisional pension at the rate of 75% duly withholding
balance 25% pension, gratuity and commutation vide G.O. Rt.No.1649, Revenue
(VIG-IV) Department dt.20-11-2009 and accordingly the petitioner is now getting
the provisional pension from the date his retirement.

7) While matters stood thus, the Petitioner has submitted several representations to
the Respondents for sanction and release of terminal benefits on 28-08-2009, 29-
10-2009, 07-06-2010 and 04-08-2010. Even after one year of his retirement the
Respondent has not chosen to consider the request of the Petitioner. The Petitioner
further has to get the benefit of Encashment of Earned Leave of 294 days. The
Petitioner has been approaching the Respondent time and again for release of his
terminal benefits and also got issued a Legal Notice to the Respondent on 11-10-
2010 for sanction of the same. It is reliable learnt that on representation of the
petitioner, the concerned has submitted a detailed note to the Respondent
recommending for the payment of benefit of Encashment of Earned Leave quoting
G.O. Rt.No.1097, Fin. (FW : Pen-I) Department dt.22-06-2000, since there was no
financial involvement or any recovery in relation to the charges. The Respondent
as understood by the petitioner has rejected and negatived the recommended
payment of encashed earned leave. It is a classic example to demonstrate how the
Respondent is bent upon to harass the petitioner.

8) It is submitted that here it is very pertinent to bring to kind notice that there are
some incidents in the department where the Authorities have sanctioned
encashment of Earned Leave to the Retired Officers previously though
departmental proceedings are pending against them. The names of said officers are
1) Sri A.Mohana Chary, Dy.Commissioner, 2) Sri A. Raghava Chary,
Dy.Commissioner and 3) Sri Shanker Reddy, Addl.Commissioner. The
Respondent has sanctioned encashment of Earned Leave to them, but in the case of
the petitioner, the Respondent is rejecting the sanction of encashment of Earned
Leave.

9) It is further submitted that if the benefit of encashment of Earned Leave is

sanctioned to the petitioner soon after his retirement he would have deposited the
said amount in the shape of F.D. in any bank so as to get him interest thereon. The
petitioner has retired from service on 31-08-2009 and even after lapse of an year,
there is no out come from the Enquiry Officer, which is contrary to the
G.O.Ms.No.679 G.A.(Service-C) D dt.01-11-2008. On account of this delay the
payment of pensionary benefits got delayed. In all the three Departmental
Proceedings, there were no financial aspects involved, no recoveries, mo
allegations, mis-use of money or any loss. Here it is very pertinent to submit that as
per rule 9(VII) (1) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, a Retired Govt.Employee is
entitled for the terminal benefit of encashment of Earned Leave to be got
sanctioned even during pendancy of any disciplinary action.

10) The above case was filed on 29th November 2010 and this Hon’ble authority
ordered notice on the respondent and posted the above case on 21-1-2011 for the
appearance of the respondent and reply. No person from the office of the
respondent represented the above case nor they filed any reply to my petition. This
Hon’ble authority adjourned the above case from 21-1-2011 to - -2011, which
is very longer date for the above mentioned case. The petitioner is only bread
winner for his family and he is burden with day to day welfare of his family. The
petitioner is suffering with the financial problems and he is in very much in need of
money. Hence this present petition is filed to advance the date of hearing from dt.
- -2011 to today i.e on 8-2-2011and I have served the copy of this petition on the
respondent for their intimation and information about filing of this petition.
 Therefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble authority be pleased to advance the
date of hearing from dt. - - 2011 to today i.e on 9-2-2011in the above stated facts
and circumstances, in the interest.

Sworn and signed before me

On this the 8th day of February 2011,
At Hyderabad. Deponent

Advocate/Hyderabad
Before Hon’ble Chairman of
Human Right Commission,
A.P. Hyderabad
Complaint No.9962/2010

BETWEEN

G.Vasudevan,
Retd.Dy.Commissioner,
Endowments Department,
…Petitioner

And
The Commissioner,
Endowments Department,
…Respondent

Advancement of date of
hearing from dt. - -
2011 to today i.e., on 9-2-
2011.

Affidavit

Filed on: 9-2-2011

Filed by: P.S.Asopa

Advocate

Address for correspondence:

15-2-195, Maharaj Gunj,
Hyderabad
MAIN RELIEF

Therefore for the reasons stated above it is prayed that this Honble Court may
be pleased to declare the action of the Respondent in delaying the sanction of the
Encashment of Earned Leave of 294 days, as highly illegal, arbitory and
consequently direct the Respondent to accord sanction of payment/ release of
Encashment of Earned Leave of 294 days, to the petitioner immediately without
any further loss of time as per rule 9(VII) (1) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules and in
accordance with G.O.Rt.No.1097, Finance and Planning Department dt.22-08-
2009 and to pass such order or orders.

PETITIONER
Before Hon’ble Chairman of Human Right Commission, A.P. Hyderabad
Complaint No.9962/2010

BETWEEN

G.Vasudevan,
Retd.Dy.Commissioner,
Endowments Department,
R/o.H.No.7-134/14,
Opp. Balaji Function Hall,
Near S.P.Nagar,
Malkajgiri, Hyderabad-500 047. …Petitioner

The Commissioner,
Endowments Department,
A.P., Hyderabad.
Office at: Tilak Road, Boggulakunta,
Ram kote, Hyderabad -500 001. …Respondent

Advancement of date of hearing from dt. - 06- 2011 to today i.e., on 21-3-2011.
The address for service of summons and notices on petitioner is that of his
counsel M/s P. S. Asopa, Advocae, having his office at 15-2-195, Maharaj gunj,
Hyderabad.
The present petition is being filed for not making payment of penisonary
benefits as per rule 9 (VII) (1) of the A.P. revised pension rules though one year
period lapsed after retirement from the service by the petitioner and stalled retrial
benefits by the respondent.

1) It is humbly submitted that the petitioner herein initially appointed as

Jr.Assistant on 05-09-1969 in the department and thereafter he promoted as a
Junior Assistant in the year 1979 and further promoted as Superintendent in the
year 1989 and as Asst. Commissioner in the year 2005 and finally promoted as
Dy.Commissioner on 26-09-2008 and posted as Executive officer at Sri Nettikanti
Anjaneya swamy temple, kasapuram village, guntakal mandal, anantapur district.
While working there, the petitioner retired from service on 31-03-2009 on
superannuation after 39 years long unblemished and legitimate service.

2) It if further submitted that the Departmental Promotion Committee which

constituted during the year 2008, cleared the name of the petitioner and
recommended for the promotion to the cadre of Dy.Commissioner (from the Cadre
of Asst.Commissioner) since there were no Departmental / Disciplinary
proceedings pending against him and accordingly he has been promoted as
Dy.Commissioner vide respondent’s proceeding No.E1/14934/2007 dt. 25-09-2008
and 26-09-2008. Due to clear chit given by the screening committee the petitioner
has been promoted. After joining as an Executive Officer in the Cadre of
Dy.Commissioner at Sri Nettikanti Anjaneya Swamy Temple, kasapuram village,
guntakal mandal anantapur district, he has rendered unblemished service.

3) It is further submitted that just prior to one month of retirement of the

petitioner, (i.e. from 22-07-2009 and onward) the Respondent has started framing
departmental proceedings against the petitioner on 3 different issues. All the
contents of the charge Memos were an after thought and moulded for the purpose
of harassing and maligning petitioner’s reputation. In two of three cases, the
charges were framed against the petitioner, almost after a lapse of (4) years. It is
submitted that the charge memos issued by the respondent, in his proceedings
No.E1/27981/2006 dt.22-07-2009 and No. E1/11041/2008, dt. 17-08-2009, were
flimsy charges against the petitioner, which not only baseless but also belated.

4) It is further submitted that the third charge Memo issued by the Respondent by
the proceedings no. E1/33777/2009, dated 25-08-2009, which is initiated just 5
days ahead of the retirement of the petitioner, was served on him on 02-09-2009
(through R.P.A.D) subsequent to retirement. This charges memo is absolutely after
thought and purposely created with an ill intention to harass and malign the
reputation of the petitioner. The main content of the charge memo dt.25-08-2009 is
that the petitioner failed to put the lands in public action. It is absolutely false
charge, as the petitioner already put the certain institution lands in public action as
per rule on 10-08-2009 and 11-08-2009 and submitted the proposals to the
respondent for his approval on 13-08-2009 itself. But the Respondent during
pendency of approval on 13-08-2009 acted contrary to the record thus framed the
untenable charges against the petitioner on 25-08-2009.

5) It is submitted that on receipt of the charge Memos (3) mentioned above, the
petitioner has submitted his explanations/ written statements of defence as called
for within the period stipulated and Respondent has appointed the Enquiry Officers
to conduct the enquiry into the charges leveled against the Petitioner. The
Petitioner has attended the enquiries before the Enquiry Officers long back. But
even till date the Enquiry Reports have not been submitted by the Inquiry Officer
& Respondent to the Government.

6) It is submitted that since the charges are pending against Petitioner, upon the
recommendation made by the Respondent, the Government was pleased to
sanction for payment of provisional pension at the rate of 75% duly withholding
balance 25% pension, gratuity and commutation vide G.O. Rt.No.1649, Revenue
(VIG-IV) Department dt.20-11-2009 and accordingly the petitioner is now getting
the provisional pension from the date his retirement.

7) While matters stood thus, the Petitioner has submitted several representations to
the Respondents for sanction and release of terminal benefits on 28-08-2009, 29-
10-2009, 07-06-2010 and 04-08-2010. Even after one year of his retirement the
Respondent has not chosen to consider the request of the Petitioner. The Petitioner
further has to get the benefit of Encashment of Earned Leave of 294 days. The
Petitioner has been approaching the Respondent time and again for release of his
terminal benefits and also got issued a Legal Notice to the Respondent on 11-10-
2010 for sanction of the same. It is reliable learnt that on representation of the
petitioner, the concerned has submitted a detailed note to the Respondent
recommending for the payment of benefit of Encashment of Earned Leave quoting
G.O. Rt.No.1097, Fin. (FW : Pen-I) Department dt.22-06-2000, since there was no
financial involvement or any recovery in relation to the charges. The Respondent
as understood by the petitioner has rejected and negatived the recommended
payment of encashed earned leave. It is a classic example to demonstrate how the
Respondent is bent upon to harass the petitioner.

8) It is submitted that here it is very pertinent to bring to kind notice that there are
some incidents in the department where the Authorities have sanctioned
encashment of Earned Leave to the Retired Officers previously though
departmental proceedings are pending against them. The names of said officers are
1) Sri A.Mohana Chary, Dy.Commissioner, 2) Sri A. Raghava Chary,
Dy.Commissioner and 3) Sri Shanker Reddy, Addl.Commissioner. The
Respondent has sanctioned encashment of Earned Leave to them, but in the case of
the petitioner, the Respondent is rejecting the sanction of encashment of Earned
Leave.
9) It is further submitted that if the benefit of encashment of Earned Leave is
sanctioned to the petitioner soon after his retirement he would have deposited the
said amount in the shape of F.D. in any bank so as to get him interest thereon. The
petitioner has retired from service on 31-08-2009 and even after lapse of an year,
there is no out come from the Enquiry Officer, which is contrary to the
G.O.Ms.No.679 G.A.(Service-C) D dt.01-11-2008. On account of this delay the
payment of pensionary benefits got delayed. In all the three Departmental
Proceedings, there were no financial aspects involved, no recoveries, mo
allegations, mis-use of money or any loss. Here it is very pertinent to submit that as
per rule 9(VII) (1) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, a Retired Govt.Employee is
entitled for the terminal benefit of encashment of Earned Leave to be got
sanctioned even during pendancy of any disciplinary action.
10) The above case was filed on 29th November 2010 and this Hon’ble authority
ordered notice on the respondent and posted the above case on 21-1-2011 for the
appearance of the respondent and reply. No person from the office of the
respondent represented the above case nor they filed any reply to my petition. This
Hon’ble authority adjourned the above case from 21-1-2011 to 21- 03-2011, which
is very longer date for the above mentioned case. The petitioner is only bread
winner for his family and he is burden with day to day welfare of his family. The
petitioner is suffering with the financial problems and he is in very much in need of
money. Hence this present petition is filed to advance the date of hearing from dt.
- 06-2011 to today i.e. on -3-2011and I have served the copy of this petition on
the respondent for their intimation and information about filing of this petition.
Therefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble authority be pleased to advance the
date of hearing from dt. - 06- 2011 to today i.e. on 21-3-2011in the above stated
facts and circumstances, in the interest.
Date: 21-3-2011
Hyderabad Counsel for the petitioner
Before Hon’ble Chairman of
Human Right Commission,
A.P. Hyderabad
Complaint No.9962/2010

BETWEEN:

G.Vasudevan,
Retd.Dy.Commissioner,
Endowments Department,
…Petitioner

And
The Commissioner,
Endowments Department,
…Respondent

Advancement of date of
hearing from dt. -6- 2011 to
today i.e., on 21-3- 2011.

Filed on: 21-3-2011

Filed by: M/s P.S.Asopa

Advocate

Address for correspondence:

15-2-195, Maharaj Gunj,
Hyderabad