P.V.Ramana Babu, v. The A.P.State Transport Corporation,
WP/9754/2012 · 2025-01-09
Harinath N
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 21706 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 21706 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 9754 OF 2012 Between: P.V.Ramana Babu, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about 60 Years, Asst.Depot Clerk (Rtd) Staff No.E.57626, R/o. 17/658, Chowdarypet, KTR College Road, Gudivada, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER AND The A.P. State Transport Corporation, Gudicada Depot, rep.by its Depot Manager, Gudivada, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent- corporation in not paying the left over 10% retirement benefits of PF, Gratuity, SBT amount amounts; and leave salary and one month full salary by the respondent-corporation to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, opposed to the doctrine of legitimate expectation and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to principles of natural justice besides the Rules and Regulations of the respondent-corporation and consequently, direct the respondent- corporation to reckon the retiremental benefits due and payable to the petitioner and to pay the same to the petitioner forthwith. % l-A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 12333 OF 2012) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent-corporation to consider the representation dt.7.3.2012 of the petitioner for payment of the amount due and payable to him. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 36757 OF 2012) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to hear and decide the main writ petition at earliest point of time.
Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent: SRI S. VENKATESWARLU SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER
cT V, APHC010307212012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3457] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 9754/2012 Between: ...PETITIONER P.v.ramana Babu AND ...RESPONDENT The A P State Transport Corporation Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent:
1.K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY(SC FOR APSRTC)
■y 2 % THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH NUNEPALLY WRIT PETITION No.9754 of 2012
ORDER: The
learned counsel for the petitioner is challenging the
1. inaction on the part of the respondent corporation in not paying 10% of the retirement benefits, including Provident Fund, Gratuity, SBT amount, leave salary, and one month full salary. The petitioner retired from the service of the respondent corporation as an Assistant Depot Clerk on 31.01.2011. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
2. the respondent corporation has paid 90% of the Provident Fund, Gratuity, and SBT amounts but retained 10%, which was to be paid within a period of three (03) months from the date of retirement. Flowever, despite 15 months have elapsed, the withheld 10% amount was not paid. Flence, the writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to a higher
3. amount. It is also stated that, if an inquiry is pending against the petitioner, the respondent should justify the withholding of the amount due to him. Before admitting the writ petition, this Court
directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 07.03.2012 and to pass necessary orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of the order.
3 * The learned standing counsel for the respondents submits
4. that the petitioner was entrusted with tickets worth Rs. 10,77,925/- which were to be handed over to the petitioner’s immediate successor. The petitioner failed to handover the tickets to his successor. As a result, a portion of the retirement benefit was withheld. It is also admitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was paid retirement benefits, except for the final statement salary. Additionally, it is stated that the petitioner failed to report to the respondent's office to hand over the ticket stock. Heard perused the record.
5. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent
6. corporation does not indicate that any enquiry is pending against the petitioner. It also does not state that an enquiry has been concluded or that the petitioner has been found guilty of any misconduct, which would entitle the respondent to withhold the petitioner's service benefits. When there is no enquiry is pending against the retired
7. employee of the respondent corporation, this Court finds no justification for withholding the retirement benefits due to the petitioner. The respondent corporation is directed to release the withheld retirement benefits, including Provident Fund, Gratuity,
4 SBT amount, and any other amounts payable to the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this Court's order, along with interest at the rate of 9%. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness the Hon’ble Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur, The Chief Justice on this Thursday, The Ninth day of January, Two Thousand and Twenty Five.
Sd/- G.HELA NAIDU //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR se€ti^ OFFICER To,
1. The Depot Manager, A.P. State Transport Corporation, Gudicada Depot, Gudivada, Krishna District.
2. One CC to Sri Peeta Raman, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri S. Venkateswarlu, SC for APSRTC (OPUC)
4. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr
HIGH COURT DATED:09/01/2025
ORDER c I 1 MAR 2025 \ ^ . Current secuon ^ > WP.No.9754 of 2012 ALLOWING THE W.P.
WITHOUT COSTS