PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) This writ appeal is posted for hearing on admission. However, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, we proceeded to decide the matter finally.
(2.) The writ appeal is preferred against the order dtd. 19/3/2021 passed in W.P.No.3421 of 2021. By the said order, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the encashment of earned leave amount and 80% of retirement gratuity, on account of pendency of C.C.No.39 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in terms of G.O.Rt.No.1097 Finance and Planning (FW Pen.I) Department, dtd. 22/6/2000, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to release encashment of earned leave amount along with 80% of retirement gratuity of the writ petitioner in terms of similar orders dtd. 14/2/2017 in W.P.No.30443 of 2016 and dtd. 24/2/2020 in W.P. No.2545 of 2020.
(3.) The writ petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/10/2011 while he was serving as Assistant SubInspector of Police. During his continuation in the service, the officials of Anti-Corruption Bureau registered a trap case against him on 30/7/2021, and thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed against him which is now registered as C.C. No.39 of 2011 pending trial in the Special Court for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada. Since on account of pendency of criminal case, the petitioner was not paid gratuity nor allowed to seek encashment of Earned Leave, he has submitted representation dtd. 9/1/2020 on the strength of G.O.Rt.No.1097 dtd. 22/6/2000. The representation was kept pending, therefore, the writ petition was preferred seeking the aforesaid relief.;