APHC010594532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 30754/2025 Between: 1. P SESHAGIRI RAO, S/O VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RTD.ASST. DEPOT CLERK (ADC) (ON MEDICAL GROUNDS), NARSARAOPET DEPO PALNADU DISTRICT. R/O DAMMALAPAU VILLAGE, GOLLAPATI MUPPALLA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT - 522408. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROADS AND BUILDINGS TRANSPORT (RTC) DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE A P S R T C, REP., BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR RTC HOUSE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, A.P.S.R.T.C., ZONE - 3, NELLORE - 524004. 4. THE DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, A.P.S.R.T.C., NARASARAOPET, PALANADU DISTRICT - 522601. 5. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., NARSARAOPETA PALANADU DISTRICT - 522601. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 topleased to issue Writ or Order more in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned Lr.No.02/756(05)/2020-NRT dt.23-06-2025 issued by the 5th respondent denying the payment of Additional Monetary Benefit (AMB) of the petitioner, from the date of his retirement on medical grounds is contrary to the Regulations 6-A(4) and 6-(5) of A.P.S.R.T.C.Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, and Circular No.PD-15/2015 dt.14-05-2015 issued by the 2nd respondent and set the impugned letter as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and a violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith release the Additional Monetary Benefit (AMB) together with interests on delayed payments to the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith re-consider the representation of the petitioners dt.28-08- 2025 for releasing Additional Monetary Benefit (AMB) without reference to impugned Lr.No.02/756(05)/2020-NRT dt.23-06-2025 issued by the 5th respondent pending disposal of the above W.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. EADARA PEDDANNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.30754 of 2025 ORDER : The present Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondents in not granting and releasing the Additional Monetary Benefit and other retirement benefits of the Petitioner from the date of retirement as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The facts leading to file the present Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner was appointed as Conductor in APSRTC in the year 1987 and his services had been regularized. Being Conductor, he has to undergo periodical medical checkups conducted by the Medical Board of the Respondent-Corporation. In the examination conducted on 09.06.2020, the Medical Board found the Petitioner unfit for the A.D.C. Category and recommended for retirement on medical grounds. The Petitioner was retired from service on 09.06.2020 on medical grounds and sought for Additional Monetary Benefit as was being provided to the similarly situated persons in APSRTC. The claim of the Petitioner for payment of Additional Monetary Benefit was denied by the Respondent-Corporation by the impugned order dated 23.06.2025. Aggrieved by the denial, Petitioner again submitted a representation dated 28.08.2025 4 claiming Additional Monetary Benefit. Though, the Petitioner had submitted a representation 28.08.2025, the same has not been considered so far, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that similarly placed employees working in APSRTC have been recommended for grant of Additional Monetary Benefits and the Petitioner is also entitled the same benefits on par with other similarly placed employees. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents would submit that the representation of the Petitioner would be considered as expeditiously as possible. 5. Considering the submissions made, this Writ Petition is disposed of with following directions: (i) The Respondent Authorities are directed to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 28.08.2025 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (ii) The Respondent Authorities shall take into consideration the Additional Monetary Benefits extended to the similarly situated 5 employees in the APSRTC while considering the case of the Petitioner. (iii) No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 07.11.2025 KLP