Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23236 (AP)

Smt. Ch. Ramanamma v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.)

WP/15078/2018 · 2025-09-15

B V L N Chakravarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010327612018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 15078/2018 Between: 1. SMT. CH. RAMANAMMA, W/O. LATE SRI CH. T. RAO, (EX.DRIVER, E.NO. 451894) R/O. KOTTAKOTA VILLAGE, SHALANTRI POST, SARUBUJJILI MANDAI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT - 532190. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION A P S R T C, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (A.P.S.R.T.C.), SRIKAKULAM REGION SRIKAKULAM 3. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION A P S R T C, SRIKAKULAM II DEPOT, SRIKAKULAM ...RESPONDENT(S): 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the salary for the period from 10.01.2004 to 17.01.2006, i.e. the date from which he was forcibly retired from service till he was reinstated into service as illegal and arbitrary, (ii) declare the action of the respondents in not protecting to pay of the petitioner husband and the salary of Grade-I Driver from the date of his reinstatement into service is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to release the salary from 10.01.2004 to 17.01.2006 as per the Section 47 of Act 1 of 1996 and consequently direct the respondents to pay difference of salary for the period from November, 2005 till the date of his death, i.e. 25.09.2010 as per Section 47 of Act 1 of 1996 including the retiral benefits to which petitioners husband is entitled to for the service rendered by him for the period from 10.09.1988 to 25.09.2010 (iii) pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 28.11.2017 of the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KRISHNA RAO MODHALAVALASA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No.15078 OF 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the salary for the period from 10.01.2004 to 17.01.2006, i.e. the date from which he was forcibly retired from service till he was reinstated into service as illegal and arbitrary, (ii) declare the action of the respondents in not protecting to pay of the petitioner husband and the salary of Grade-I Driver from the date of his reinstatement into service is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to release the salary from 10.01.2004 to 17.01.2006 as per the Section 47 of Act 1 of 1996 and consequently direct the respondents to pay difference of salary for the period from November, 2005 till the date of his death, i.e. 25.09.2010 as per Section 47 of Act 1 of 1996 including the retiral benefits to which petitioners husband is entitled to for the service rendered by him for the period from 10.09.1988 to 25.09.2010 (iii) pass……” 2. Learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC/respondents is in attendance. 3. None appeared for the petitioner, though the matter is listed today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Earlier also i.e., on 19.08.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner. 4. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 16.09.2025 MP 99 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No:15078 OF 2018 Date: 16.09.2025 MP