ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “To issue Writ of Mandamus to declaring the impugned proceedings in RC No APSPF/A3/PR/52/20062020 dated 3rd 11.12.2020 of the respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner to sanction and grant the death and Pensionary Benefits as wholly dependent on his diseased son due to not produced any evidence to show he was wholly dependent as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the Rule 50 of A P Revised Pensionary Rules 1980 and violative of the Articles 14, 16, 21 and 309 of the constitution of India and set aside the same and consequentially direct the respondents to sanction and grant and release the death and Pensionary Benefits including applicable benefits if any in favour of petitioner as wholly dependent on his diseased son who died on 18.12.2014” The factual matrix of the case is as follows: One K.V.V. Srinivasa Chowdary @ Srinu (hereinafter referred as ‘Srinivasa Chowdary’) was appointed as Constable, P.C.No.988 in Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force (for short ‘APSPF’) in the year 1994 and later, he was promoted as Head Constable in the year 2000 under the control of Commandant, Special Protection Force, Vijayawada/Respondent No.4. Srinivasa Chowdary died on 18.12.2014. While the petitioner’s son was working as Head Constable at the A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, he was allegedly implicated in a false Criminal Case in Crime No.139 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C on the file of II Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari. He was arrested on 26.07.2006 and remanded to judicial custody. Later, the authorities conducted a departmental enquiry without waiting till completion of criminal case, the authorities took a decision on the enquiry report and proposed to remove Srinivasa Chowdary from service. Sessions Case No.184 of 2008 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, was ended in acquittal vide calendar and judgment dated 08.03.2010. It is contended that, after acquittal, Srinivasa Chowdary has to be reinstated into service, but, unfortunately the petitioner’s son -Srinivasa Chowdary died on 18.12.2014. Though the petitioner made several representations to the concerned authorities to grant pensionary benefits to him, as he is dependant and also senior citizen, consequent upon death of his son -Srinivasa Chowdary, he received no response from the authorities. Though the petitioner made several representations to the concerned authorities to grant pensionary benefits to him, as he is dependant and also senior citizen, consequent upon death of his son -Srinivasa Chowdary, he received no response from the authorities. As there is no response from the authorities, the petitioner approached National Human Rights Commission at New Delhi vide Case No.1860/1/5/2020 dated 20.11.2020, then the third respondent passed the impugned order stating that even though as per Rule 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Rules’) the parents who are only dependant on the government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee left behind neither a widow nor child shall only be eligible for pensionary benefits. But, the fourth respondent/Commandant, APSPF rejected the claim of this petitioner as he did not produce any evidence to show that the petitioner was wholly dependant on his deceased son when he was alive and the fourth respondent did not sanction pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for sanction and release the pensionary benefits of his deceased son -Srinivasa Chowdary. The fourth respondent/Commandant, APSPF filed counter, denying material allegations made in the petition, while admitting appointment of Srinivasa Chowdary as Constable in APSPF, his involvement in Crime No.139 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 I.P.C on the file of II Town Police Station, Kakinada and initiation of proceedings against this petitioner by the disciplinary authority/Respondent No.4, as he was unauthorizedly absent from duties with effect from 11.07.2006, his arrest in connection with the above crime, placing Srinivasa Chowdary under suspension vide Proceedings No.O.O.No.1313/2006 dated 20.07.2006 by the Additional Commandant, A.P. Secretariat, SPF, A.P., Hyderabad. The fourth respondent further admitted about acquittal of Srinivasa Chowdary on 18.03.2010 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada, inter alia, contended that, Srinivasa Chowdary never claimed subsistence allowance during his suspension period. It is contended that Srinivasa Chowdary was not supposed to leave headquarters without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority during suspension period, but, he left headquarters without any intimation and he did not inform the same to his superiors. While the departmental proceedings were pending, Srinivasa Chowdary died on 18.12.2014 and his whereabouts were not known throughout his suspension period from 20.07.2006 till his death i.e till 18.12.2014. While the departmental proceedings were pending, Srinivasa Chowdary died on 18.12.2014 and his whereabouts were not known throughout his suspension period from 20.07.2006 till his death i.e till 18.12.2014. It is further contended that, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.260 General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 04.09.2003 directed that, in all cases of unauthorized absence from duty for a continuous period of exceeding one year, the penalty of removal from service shall be imposed on the Government employee following the procedure laid down in Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991. The respondent contended that Srinivasa Chowdary deserved to be removed from service as the charge of unauthorized absence was proved, during the enquiry and formal proceedings were to be initiated. It is further contended that, as per the mandatory requirement under Fundamental Rules as well as CC&A Rules, production of non-earning certificate during the period of suspension of Srinivasa Chowdary. In the absence of production of said certificate, the petitioner cannot be accepted as dependant on the deceased son. Therefore, absolutely, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits under the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. During hearing, Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the reason mentioned in the impugned proceedings is different from the reason mentioned in the counter affidavit and whatever improved in the counter affidavit to deny pension cannot be looked into, as the petitioner cannot substitute anything to the order impugned in the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit, therefore, any improvement made by the respondent in the counter affidavit is not a substitute to the reason assigned in the impugned order. Hence, the improved facts cannot be looked into for deciding the real controversy between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, merely because son of this petitioner – Srinivasa Chowdary did not claim subsistence allowance during the period of suspension i.e. for a period of eight years, it is not a ground to deny pension, as there was a possibility to his son to attend to some other work for providing maintenance to his father i.e. the petitioner and that may be one of the reasons for failure to claim any subsistence allowance. In fact, no final order was passed in the departmental enquiry and the suspension was not revoked by the respondent which was passed against the son of this petitioner. In fact, no final order was passed in the departmental enquiry and the suspension was not revoked by the respondent which was passed against the son of this petitioner. In the absence of revocation of suspension and reinstatement into service, Srinivasa Chowdary by the fourth respondent, failure to attend to duty does not arise and at best, he is required to stay at headquarters. But, on account of his absence from duty, during suspension period, the contention that he was absent for more than one year is without any substance. The petitioner being an old aged person and father of the deceased Srinivasa Chowdary was the dependant. It is contended that, if any opportunity is given to the petitioner, he will produce material to establish that the petitioner did not possess any source of income, movable or immovable property to eke out his livelihood at the advanced age of life. But, without affording any opportunity, the claim of this petitioner was rejected by the fourth respondent which is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue a direction as stated supra. Sri Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I refuted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and raised a specific ground that, during pendency of enquiry, Srinivasa Chowdary – son of this petitioner did not claim subsistence allowance by producing necessary non-earning certificate, that itself is indicative that the petitioner was not a dependant on his son during his lifetime. If, really, the petitioner was dependant, Srinivasa Chowdary would have claimed subsistence allowance during the suspension period till his death. Apart from that, when the enquiry was initiated for serious misconduct and for his absence for more than one year from duty, Srinivasa Chowdary was liable to be dismissed from service, in view of G.O.Ms.No.260 General Administration (Services.C) Department dated 04.09.2003 But, before passing such an order, Srinivasa Chowdary expired. In those circumstances, the petitioner is disentitled to claim death benefits and family pension in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules and requested to dismiss the writ petition. Considering rival contention, perusing the material available on record, the sole point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner being father of the deceased Srinivasa Chowdary, who worked as P.C.No.988 in Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force is entitled to death benefits of his son. Whether the petitioner was a dependant during the lifetime of Srinivasa Chowdary. Considering rival contention, perusing the material available on record, the sole point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner being father of the deceased Srinivasa Chowdary, who worked as P.C.No.988 in Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force is entitled to death benefits of his son. Whether the petitioner was a dependant during the lifetime of Srinivasa Chowdary. If so, whether he is entitled to claim family pension in terms of Rules 50 and 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. If so, whether the order impugned in the writ petition be sustained?. If not, whether this Court can declare the impugned order as illegal, arbitrary and set-aside the same by issuing a direction to pay the pensionary benefits? POINT: The relationship between the deceased Srinivasa Chowdary and this petitioner is not in dispute. Equally, appointment of Srinivasa Chowdary as Police Constable in APSPF and his promotion to the next cadre i.e. Head Constable, including his involvement in Crime No.139 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 I.P.C II Town Police Station, Kakinada, East Godavari and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against son of petitioner are not in quarrel. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against son of this petitioner – Srinivasa Chowdary due to his involvement in a grave crime punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 I.P.C. The disciplinary proceedings were not terminated and admittedly, the proceedings were delayed by the respondents due to administrative reasons. However, the respondents raised another ground that son of this petitioner was absent continuously for a period of more than one year and thereby, he is liable to be removed from service, in view of G.O.Ms.No.260 dated 04.09.2003. This contention is very strange, for the reason that, Srinivasa Chowdary was placed under suspension during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. Unless the suspension is revoked and reinstated into service, question of his attending to duty or office does not arise. In those circumstances, the strange contention urged by the fourth respondent for the proposed dismissal of Srinivasa Chowdary by applying G.O.Ms.No.260 dated 04.09.2003, Srinivasa Chowdary is liable to be rejected, as Srinivasa Chowdary was not under obligation to attend to duty during the suspension period. If, Srinivasa Chowdary was to attend duty during suspension period, the suspension order will become otiose or redundant. If, Srinivasa Chowdary was to attend duty during suspension period, the suspension order will become otiose or redundant. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Services-I that the petitioner’s son was absent from duty unauthorizedly is hereby rejected. Undoubtedly, during the period of suspension, the government servant shall stay at headquarters and shall not leave the headquarters without the leave of the disciplinary authority or the head of the department. The respondent raised a contention that Srinivasa Chowdary was totally absent from the headquarters without prior permission of the disciplinary authority or the head of the department, as such, it shall be treated as absence from duty and requested to consider the same as one of the grounds. No doubt, a government servant shall stay at the headquarters during suspension period, however, he can leave the headquarters with the prior permission of the disciplinary authority or head of the department. Here, no material is placed on record by the fourth respondent that Srinivasa Chowdary was away from the headquarters during the period of suspension. Even otherwise, that would not be a ground for rejection of any of the death benefits payable to the legal heirs of the deceased, consequent upon death of the government servant. Therefore, the absence of Srinivasa Chowdary at the headquarters during the period of suspension cannot be enquired into by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and admittedly, no separate departmental enquiry was initiated against Srinivasa Chowdary for his unauthorized absence either at the headquarters or by the head of the department, in case, his suspension is revoked and reinstated into service. In the absence of any material, it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondents. As Srinivasa Chowdary, who is a government servant died during pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and no final order was passed, the disciplinary proceedings are deemed to have been abated and the deceased Srinivasa Chowdary is deemed to have been died while in service. Therefore, he was a member of the government servant in APSPF. As Srinivasa Chowdary, who is a government servant died during pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and no final order was passed, the disciplinary proceedings are deemed to have been abated and the deceased Srinivasa Chowdary is deemed to have been died while in service. Therefore, he was a member of the government servant in APSPF. When the disciplinary proceedings are deemed to have been abated consequent upon the death of Srinivasa Chowdary, who was found not guilty in S.C.No. 184 of 2008 vide calendar and judgment dated 08.03.2010, the respondents are under obligation to pay the death benefits of Srinivasa Chowdary to the legal heirs of the deceased Srinivasa Chowdary. The petitioner made several representations to the fourth respondent for payment of death benefits and sanction of family pension. The same was rejected by the fourth respondent, assigning a specific reason, alleging that the disciplinary proceedings against Srinivasa Chowdary were initiated due to his involvement in a criminal case and unauthorized absence from duty. The charge of unauthorized absence was held proved during enquiry. Thereupon, a show cause notice was sent to the address of Srinivasa Chowdary by registered post on completion of departmental enquiry, but the same was returned by the postal authorities with remarks, “no such person in the station”. Hence, returned to sender. Later, it was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 30.01.2014. While the proceedings were pending, Srinivasa Chowdary died on 18.03.2014. Thus, his whereabouts were not known throughout the suspension period from 20.07.2006 till his death on 18.12.2014, thereby, rejected family pension in terms of Rules 50 and 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, as the father was not dependant of his son Srinivasa Chowdary during is lifetime. On analysis of the reason mentioned in the impugned order, it is clear that, the charge against Srinivasa Chowdary for his unauthorized absence was proved and a notice was sent by registered post to the last known address, but, it was returned with an endorsement that he was not available at the station. At the same time, in the other paragraph of the order, it is specifically mentioned that, whereabouts of Srinivasa Chowdary were not known throughout his suspension period i.e. from 20.07.2006 to till his death on 18.12.2014. At the same time, in the other paragraph of the order, it is specifically mentioned that, whereabouts of Srinivasa Chowdary were not known throughout his suspension period i.e. from 20.07.2006 to till his death on 18.12.2014. This specific sentence is suffice to conclude that Srinivasa Chowdary was placed under suspension, not revoked and reinstated into service till date of his death. In such circumstances, question of Srinivasa Chowdary’s unauthorized absence to duty does not arise, as he was debarred from discharging his duties temporarily during the period of suspension. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.260 dated 04.09.2003 will have no application. Admittedly, no punishment or penalty was imposed on Srinivasa Chowdary for alleged unauthorized absence in terms of G.O.Ms.No.260 dated 04.09.2003. In the absence of imposition of any penalty of either dismissal or removal or any other major penalty, denial of death benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased Srinivasa Chowdary is a serious illegality and it is an arbitrary act of the respondents. Therefore, the action of the respondents in denying payment of death benefits of Srinivasa Chowdary, who was deemed to be in service till his death, in the absence of any order of removal or dismissal passed by the competent authority, non-payment of death benefits to the petitioner consequent upon death of his son is illegal. One of the contentions raised in the counter affidavit is that, during suspension period of Srinivasa Chowdary from 20.07.2006 to till his death on 18.12.2014, he did not claim any subsistence allowance i.e non-earning certificate. Even assuming for a moment that, Srinivasa Chowdary did not claim subsistence allowance during his suspension period till his death, which is not a disqualification to this petitioner to claim death benefits and family pension payable to the legal heirs of Srinivasa Chowdary. Srinivasa Chowdary might have engaged in any other activity during his suspension period to eke out his livelihood, since there is no bar. However, no inference cannot be draw that the petitioner was not a dependant, as his son -Srinivasa Chowdary did not draw subsistence allowance. There is no presumption either under law or fact that the old aged father is not a dependant on son as he did not claim subsistence allowance during period of suspension. In any view of the matter, this ground urged by the respondent is not a reason for rejection of claim in the impugned order. There is no presumption either under law or fact that the old aged father is not a dependant on son as he did not claim subsistence allowance during period of suspension. In any view of the matter, this ground urged by the respondent is not a reason for rejection of claim in the impugned order. It is a settled proposition of law that, pleading cannot substitute a reason in an administrative order and this view is fortified by the judgment of the Constitutional Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (1978) 1 SCC 405 wherein it was held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise; otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional reasons/grounds later brought in. In the said judgment, the Constitution Bench referred to earlier judgment in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 wherein the Apex Court observed as follows: “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. As such orders are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed' they must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” By applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, a party cannot improve the order by filing a counter affidavit, since it is impermissible, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgment referred above. Therefore, the ground by away of improvement raised in the counter affidavit by the respondents is hereby rejected, as it is impermissible. Therefore, the ground by away of improvement raised in the counter affidavit by the respondents is hereby rejected, as it is impermissible. Coming to the claim of this petitioner regarding non-payment of family pension, the petitioner’s entitlement to claim family pension in terms of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules is to be examined with reference to Rules contained therein, since the respondents contention was that, the petitioner was not the dependant of the deceased Srinivasa Chowdary during his lifetime. The petitioner is aged 77 years and by the date of death of Srinivasa Chowdary, the petitioner might be aged more than 60 years. Widow and children of the deceased and parents of the deceased are included in the definition of family under Rule 50 (12) of the Rules and it is extracted hereunder: For the purposes of this rule :- (a) “continuous service” means service rendered in a temporary or permanent capacity in a pensionable establishment and does not include- (i) Period of suspension, if any, and (ii) Period of service, if any, rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years; (b) “Family” in relation to Government servant means - Category-I” (i) wife in the case of a male Government servant, or husband in the case of a female Government servant. Note 1:-Wife and husband shall include respectively judicially separated wife and husband. Note 2:-Where the appointing authority decides that for reasons to be recorded in writing a child or children from a judicially separated deceased female Government servant should receive the family pension in preference to judicially separated husband of the deceased Government servant such husband shall not be regarded as covered by the expression ‘family’. (ii) Sons/daughters including such son/daughter adopted legally before retirement or son/daughter born after retirement, and also including physically/mentally disabled son/daughter. Category-II (i) Unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter, not covered by Category-I above, (ii) Parents who were wholly dependent on the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee has left behind neither a widow nor a child. Admittedly, Srinivasa Chowdary died unmarried and question of leaving a widow or children does not arise. Therefore, the petitioner would fall within Category-II under the definition of Family under Rule 50(12) of the Rules. Admittedly, Srinivasa Chowdary died unmarried and question of leaving a widow or children does not arise. Therefore, the petitioner would fall within Category-II under the definition of Family under Rule 50(12) of the Rules. If the petitioner is able to satisfy that he was the dependant of his son Srinivasa Chowdary during his lifetime, he is entitled to claim family pension in terms of Rule 50 r/w Rule 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules. The petitioner is admittedly father of deceased Srinivasa Chowdary and without of possessing any independent means. The petitioner placed on record copy of the rice card issued by Food Supplies Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, to show that this petitioner is a rice card holder falling under Below Poverty line. No opportunity was afforded to this petitioner to produce such document before the fourth respondent to prove that he was dependant on Srinivasa Chowdary during his lifetime. In fact, there is nothing in the Rules requiring the petitioner to establish that he is totally depending upon his son Srinivasa Chowdary during his lifetime. But, the basic requirement is to prove dependency of the petitioner at the relevant point of time when his son died. One of the claims of the petitioner before this Court is that, the petitioner was not paid the death benefits of his son Srinivasa Chowdary. As the death of Srinivasa Chowdary took place while in service, the respondents are liable to pay the death benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased government servant which are inclusive of general provident fund, group insurance amount and other benefits. Denial of payment of gratuity, general provident fund and other benefits is not permissible except under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Rule 52 of the Rules deals with provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceeding may be pending: (1) (a) In respect of a Government servant referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 9, the Audit Officer/Head of Office shall pay the provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service up to the date of retirement of the Government servant, or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement, up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension. (b) The provisional pension shall be paid by the Audit Officer/Head of Office during the period commencing from the date of retirement to the date on which, upon the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority. (c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders. Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Control Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1991, for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 9 of the said rules, except the cases falling under subrule (2) of Rule 22 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the Government servant. Provided further that not withstanding anything contained in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) above, where a conclusion has been reached that a portion of pension only should be with held or with drawn and the retirement gratuity remains uneffected in the contemplated final orders, the retirement gratuity can be released upto 80%. (2) Payment of provisional pension made under sub-rule (1) shall be adjusted against final retirement benefits sanctioned to such Government servant upon conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period. (3) Nothing contained in this rule shall prejudice the operation of Rule 6 when final pension is sanctioned upon the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings” Thus, according to second proviso to Rule 52(c) of the Rules, where a conclusion has been reached that a portion of pension only should be with held or with drawn and the retirement gratuity remains uneffected in the contemplated final orders, the retirement gratuity can be released upto 80% vide G.O.Ms.No.227, Fin & Plg (FW.Pen-I) Department dated 10-10-1995. Therefore, the fourth respondent cannot withhold the gratuity, general provident fund and other benefits payable to the petitioner upon death of Srinivasa Chowdary. Rule 9 of the Rules deals with Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension and it is also relevant at this stage to decide the power of the State. Therefore, the fourth respondent cannot withhold the gratuity, general provident fund and other benefits payable to the petitioner upon death of Srinivasa Chowdary. Rule 9 of the Rules deals with Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension and it is also relevant at this stage to decide the power of the State. According to it; (1) The Government reserves to themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specific period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused, to the Government and to the local authority if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement : Provided that the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed. Provided further that a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 45. Provided also that the penalty of withholding of entire pension or gratuity or both may be imposed against the retired Government servant upon being found guilty or upon conviction in a court of law for the offences of grave charges namely proved cases of misappropriation, bribery, bigamy, corruption, moral turpitude, forgery, outraging the modesty of women and misconduct. (2)(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the State Government, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the State Government. Time and again, certain executive instructions were issued by the Government for payment of pensionary benefits to the government servants retired from service pending disciplinary action, vide G.O.Rt.No.1097 Finance & Planning Department dated 22.06.2000. Time and again, certain executive instructions were issued by the Government for payment of pensionary benefits to the government servants retired from service pending disciplinary action, vide G.O.Rt.No.1097 Finance & Planning Department dated 22.06.2000. A retired Government employee is entitled for the, following terminal benefits to be got sanctioned. 1) Family Benefit Fund 2) Andhra Pradesh Group Insurance Amount 3) General Provident Fund Amount 4) Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insurance amount. 5) Encashment of Earned Leave 6) Retirement Gratuity 7) Pension/Provisional pension 8) Commuted Value of Pension 9) All other death benefits payable In case of Government Employee against whom the departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings are pending at the time of retirement, all the above terminal benefits need not be released. Proceedings pending means, there must be proceedings already initiated and pending within the meaning of Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. A Government servant who attains the age of superannuation while under suspension should be allowed to retire on the due date of superannuation. But pensionary benefits can not be settled until the conclusion of the enquiry or disposal of charges. In such cases, the payment of terminal benefits shall be regulated as follows:-a) The following amounts shall be paid to the retired employee since no recoveries can be made from these amounts: 1) Family Benefit Fund 2) Andhra Pradesh Group Insurance Scheme 3) General Provident Fund 4) Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insurance b) Encashment of Earned Leave : As per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 11, Fin & Plg (FW : F.R-I) Dept., dated 15-01-1997 the authority competent to grant leave, in the above mentioned cases may with hold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave, if in the view of the competent authority there is a possibility of the some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him. On conclusion, the retired employee will become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of the Government dues, if any. As such, Encashment of Earned Leave can be regulated accordingly. c) Retirement Gratuity: According to clause [c] of sub-rule (1) of rule 52 of the A.P.R.P.Rs, 1980, no gratuity shall be paid until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders. As such, Encashment of Earned Leave can be regulated accordingly. c) Retirement Gratuity: According to clause [c] of sub-rule (1) of rule 52 of the A.P.R.P.Rs, 1980, no gratuity shall be paid until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders. According to the proviso to the above said rule, where departmental proceedings have been instituted under rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1991, for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of rule 9 of the said rules, except the cases falling under sub-rule (2) of rule 22 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the Government servant. It is also further provided in the said rule that where a conclusion has been reached that a portion of pension only should be withheld or withdrawn and the retirement gratuity remains unaffected in the contemplated final orders, the retirement gratuity can be released upto 80% of the eligible retirement gratuity. d) Provisional Pension: 1. As per sub-rule (4) of rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the retired employees mentioned in the above cases shall be sanctioned provisional pension as provided in rule 52 of the said rules. According to Rule 52 of the said rules, the Audit Officer/head of office shall pay the provisional pension not exceeding the eligible pension. The provisional pension shall be paid from the date of retirement to the date on which final orders are passed by the competent authority on conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings pending against the retired employee. The provisional pension shall not be less than 75% of the normal pension entitlement. 2. Pension sanctioning authorities are competent to sanction provisional pension to the Non-Gazetted Officers. It shall be sanctioned by the Government in the case of Gazetted Officers. 3. In the above mentioned cases the department shall send pension papers to the Accountant General and it should be mentioned in the forwarding letter that departmental/judicial proceedings are pending and with a request to indicate only the quantum of pension that would be admissible which should not be released till further orders as only provisional pension has to be released. In the above mentioned cases the department shall send pension papers to the Accountant General and it should be mentioned in the forwarding letter that departmental/judicial proceedings are pending and with a request to indicate only the quantum of pension that would be admissible which should not be released till further orders as only provisional pension has to be released. The Accountant General may then verify the pensionary benefits admissible and indicate the quantum of pension, where upon, the Head of the department may intimate the quantum of provisional pension for payment in case of Gazetted Officers, so that Government will sanction the same. The Accountant General, AP, Hyderabad will straight way authorise the minimum provisional pension i.e.75% of the quantum of pension verified by his office, pending sanction by the pension sanctioning authority and that if the appropriate authority sanctions more than 75% of the eligible pension as provisional pension, the Accountant General will issue an amendment accordingly. But, in the present facts of the case, the deceased government servant was not the claimant, but his father was the claimant and that, no disciplinary proceedings were culminated into penalty against the deceased Srinivasa Chowdary, thereby question of imposing penalty against the deceased Srinivasa Chowdary does not arise, therefore, no penalty was imposed against Srinivasa Chowdary during his lifetime. Consequently, in the absence penalty imposed against the deceased government servant, the benefits payable to the deceased employee which are stated above shall be released except family pension, which is in question. Hence, withholding of death benefits payable consequent upon death of the government servant, except family pension is a grave illegality and it amounts to depriving the petitioner from enjoying the property, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi (referred supra). In Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2020 (5) ALT 77 Division Bench of this Court (to which I am a member) held that non-payment of pension, if not authorized by law, is violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and awarded interest 12% per annum on the deferred pension. In Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2020 (5) ALT 77 Division Bench of this Court (to which I am a member) held that non-payment of pension, if not authorized by law, is violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and awarded interest 12% per annum on the deferred pension. The matter was carried to Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.12553 of 2020, wherein the Apex Court while affirming the order of the Division Bench of this Court, scaled down the interest from 12% to 6%. Therefore, based on the judgment of the Apex Court in the judgment referred supra, interest at the rate of 6% on the arrears of benefits payable to the petitioner is hereby awarded. In the result, writ petition is allowed, directing Respondent No.4 to pay the following benefits to the legal heir together with interest @ 6%, consequent upon death of Srinivasa Chowdary. 1) Andhra Pradesh Group Insurance Amount 2) General Provident Fund Amount 3) Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insurance amount. 4) Encashment of Earned Leave 5) Retirement Gratuity With regard to payment of family pension, Respondent No.4/Commandant, Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force, is directed to conduct an enquiry as to the dependency of this petitioner, affording reasonable opportunity to this petitioner to produce material to prove that he was dependant on his deceased son – Srinivasa Chowdary while he was alive and in service and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, in accordance with law. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.