IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6338 of 2000 Between: S.Venkata Rao S/o.Venkanna, Pedda Yellamilli, Unkuturu Mandal, Tadepalligudem (T), West Godavari District-534 411. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Nidadavole of West Godavari District. 2 Chief Accounts Officer, A.P.S.R.TC., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or orders or directions particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents to pay the pension and pensionary benefits the family pension scheme by declaring the action of respondents for non-settling the pension and pensionary benefits as illegal and arbitrary, contrary to law, violation of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India, in the interest of justice, and pass such other order or orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.M.V.RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondents : MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not paying his pension and pensionary benefits, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner was in the service of the respondent- Corporation, working as a Driver in Nidadavole Depot, and he retired from service on 30th of September 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that although deductions were made from his salary towards contribution for the Family Pension Scheme, he has not been extended the benefit of said scheme after his retirement. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the Law Officer of the respondent/Corporation. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on 02.12.1968 and upon attaining the age of superannuation, he has retired from service on 30th September 1996. It is stated that after the entry of the petitioner in to service, during the year 1971, Family Pension Scheme was introduced for the benefit of the employees of respondent/Corporation, and as per the said scheme, the employees who were appointed in the Corporation prior to 01.03.1971, were to exercise option to have the benefits of the scheme within a period of six months, and no such option was exercised by the petitioner. It was stated that only during the years 1976-77, 1984-85 and 1988-89, deductions were made from the salary of the petitioner erroneously, but however, after retirement of the petitioner, the recovered amounts were sent to the Depot Manager, Nidadavole, to refund the same to the petitioner, but the petitioner has refused to receive the same. 4. At the outset, it is to be noted that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who is the custodian of the Fund under the Pension Scheme, is not even made as party respondent in this writ petition. Further, it is categorically stated in the counter affidavit that option was not exercised by the petitioner for the family pension scheme, but deductions were erroneously made during three years. It is further stated that they have offered to refund the said amount to the petitioner, but the petitioner has refused to receive the same. 5. Asmuch as the petitioner did not opt for the scheme, and deductions were also not made throughout his service after the introduction of the scheme in the year 1971, in that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot claim benefits under the said scheme. It is also stated that the petitioner’s name also did not figure on the rolls of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of FPS of 1971. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, on the approach of the petitioner, the respondents shall refund the amounts, which were earlier recovered from him erroneously. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th February 2009. ajr