P a g e | 1 APHC010357262024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 18157 OF 2024 Between: 1. K VENKATARATHNAM, S/o. K Kuppa Swamy, Aged 71 years, Occ Ex APSRTC Puttur Depot, E 500258, R/o. Door No. 23, Cart Street, Pallipattu 631 207, Tiruvallure District ...Petitioner AND 1. Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation, Vijayawada, 3rd Floor, RTC House, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh - 520013 Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director 2. The Divisional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation, Tirupati, Tirupati District 3. The Depot Manager, Puttur Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation, Chittoor District ...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 to declare the inaction of the respondents in release the retiremental benefit of petitioner Ex APSRTC, Puttur Depot, E 500258 till his superannuation by considering the orders passed in WP No. /1995 and also P a g e | 2 regulation 6(A) (1) and (4) of the A P R Corporation Employees (service) Regulations, 1964 the petitioner is entitled to absorbing in any suitable post and continue him till his superannuation is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to pay the all retiremental benefits which he is entitle upto his superannuation in the interest of justice, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 release the petitioners’ monthly pension Ex APSRTC, Puttur Depot, E 500258 pending disposal of the above WP in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: T JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: ARAVALA RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following order: P a g e | 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 18157 OF 2024 O R D E R: 1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “……………to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in release the retiremental benefit of petitioner Ex APSRTC, Puttur Depot, E 500258 till his superannuation by considering the orders passed in W.P.No.3747/1995 and also regulation 6(A) (1) and (4) of the A P R Corporation Employees (service) Regulations, 1964 the petitioner is entitled to absorbing in any suitable post and continue him till his superannuation is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to pay the all retiremental benefits which he is entitle upto his superannuation in the interest of justice………” 2. Brief averments of case facts are that: (i) Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in APSRTC in March 1986 and rendered unblemished service until he was declared medically unfit for the post of Driver on 05.11.1993. He was thereafter placed on leave and retired on medical grounds with effect from 05.11.1994 under Regulation 6-A of the APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964. Under Regulation 6- A(5), he was entitled to suitable alternative employment, subject to his qualification and suitability. (ii) Petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.12.1993 seeking alternative employment. As the respondents failed to provide the same, he approached the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.3747/1995. By order dated P a g e | 4 12.06.1997, this Court directed the respondents to provide him suitable alternative employment until the age of superannuation and held that he was entitled to the terminal and other monetary benefits attached to the post of Driver. (iii) Respondents did not implement the said direction and merely placed his name at Sl.No.20 in a list for appointment as Cleaner. W.P.No.3964/1999 filed for implementation was dismissed on 01.03.1999, reserving liberty to initiate contempt proceedings. Petitioner did not pursue contempt proceedings on account of assurances given by respondents that alternative employment would be provided. Ultimately, by proceedings dated 13.04.2009, respondents stated that alternative employment was not possible, and petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2010. (iv) Thereafter, W.P.No.3253/2011 was disposed of on 17.02.2016 with a direction to the respondents to settle the petitioner’s retirement benefits in accordance with the APSRTC Service Regulations. Despite repeated representations and RTI applications, the admissible retirement benefits remained unsettled, and the respondents, in 2023, reiterated that the benefits would be settled in accordance with the said Court order. (v) Thus, respondents failed to implement the direction issued in W.P.No.3747/1995 and failed to extend the benefit of alternative employment under Regulation 6-A(5). Petitioner is therefore entitled to settlement of all admissible retirement/terminal benefits and consequential monetary benefits P a g e | 5 in accordance with the applicable Regulations and the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. 3. Respondents have filed their counter stating that, insofar as the implementation of orders passed in W.P.No.3747 of 1995 is concerned, this Court, by order dated 07.02.2016 in W.P.No.3523 of 2011, did not grant the relief sought by petitioner. Petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2010. Thereafter, a letter dated 02.01.2016 was sent to petitioner's residential address by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD), directing him to attend the Office of the Depot Manager, Puttur, for settlement of his terminal benefits. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the said letter on 11.01.2016, but failed to submit his claim. Further, Record Assistant of Puttur Depot was deputed to petitioner's residential address to hand over the requisite claim forms to him; however, petitioner refused to receive the same and signed accordingly. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that, if petitioner approaches the concerned authority and submits his claim along with relevant particulars, respondents will consider and settle the same in accordance with the rules. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondents, furnishing all relevant particulars in support of his claim, and approach the Depot Manager, Puttur, for settlement of his retiremental benefits. Petitioner P a g e | 6 shall submit such representation within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation, respondents shall consider petitioner’s claim and settle his retiremental benefits, in accordance with the directions passed by this Court in W.P.No.3523 of 2011, dated 07.02.2016, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the representation. 6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 15.09.2026 SAK P a g e | 7 171 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 18157 OF 2024 Date: 15.09.2026 SAK