Ns IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ^ PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 31560 OF 2018 Between: Sri P.Murthuja, E.103615 ADC Retd., APSRTC., Nandyal Depot, S/o Sali Saheb, aged about 61 years, R/o Flat No. 106, Sri Krishna Sai Apartments, Co-operative Colony, Kadapa, Kadapa District. ...PETITIONER AND The Union of India (UOI), rep. by its Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi -110001. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad-500027. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kadapa, Kadapa District. The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, RTC House, Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool Region, Kurnool, Kurnool Dist. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nandyal Depot, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. / ...RESPONDENTS 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, declaring the action of the respondents in not granting the Full Pension (higher pension) to the petitioner Rs.6,500/- per mpnth as per the balance contribution made from the salary in excess which V.V is retained in the Provident Fund Account i.e., Employer Contribution 12% and Employee Contribution 8.33% as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10013-10014 of 2016 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.33032 - 33033 of 2015, dt.04-10-2016 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art.14, 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950, consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay higher pension subject to a limit of Rs.6,500/- per month to the ^petitioner as per Para-11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. ^ lA 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 2 nd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dt. 12-07-2017 for the grant of full pension (Higher Pension) Rs.6,500/- per month as per Para-11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. A. K. MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI T. BALAJI, SC FOR EPFO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO, SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER Sr APHC010651402018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] I THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 31560/2018 Between: Sri P.murthuja ...PETITIONER AND The Union Of India Uoi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S AK MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.T BALAJI{SC FOR EPFO) 2.ARAVALA RAMA RAO 3. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA 4.ARAVALA RAMA RAO{SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: ORDER: ) ) i This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “ to issue writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting the Full Pension (higher pension) to the petitioner Rs.6,500/- per month as per the balance contribution made from the salary in excess which is retained in the Provident Fund Account i.e., Employer Contribution 12% and Employee Contribution 8.33% as per law laid down by the Flon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10013-10014 of 2016 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.33032-33033 of 2 2015, dt. 04.10.2016 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art. 14, 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950 consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay higher pension subject to a limit of Rs.6,500/- per month to the petitioner as per Para-11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and pass ..." None represented on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. As per the office note, notice which was sent to the petitioner is returned with an endorsement ‘addressee is not residing in the said address’. 3. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. 4. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand 1 closed. Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHAR! ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OPFJCER To, One CC to Sri S. A. K. Mynuddin, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri T. Balaji, SC for EPFO[OPUC] One CC to Sri Aravala Rama Rao, SC for APSRTC[OPUC] One CC to the Deputy Solicitor General of India, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies. 1. 2. 3. 4. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:19/06/2025 ORDER WP.No.31560 of 2018 DISMISSING THE W.P. FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS