IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6853 of 2008 Between: P. Venkat Reddy S/o Ram Reddy r/o 3-2-92, Baghameeri Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC., rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Account Officer, O/o The Regional Manager (HCR), APSRTC, JBS., Secunderabad. 3 the Depot manager, APSRTC., Bus Depot, Miyapur, 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 an appropriate Writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not fixing the pay in RPS 2005, not arranging the arrears of RPS 2005 payable for the period from 01-04-2005 to 30-04-2006, deference of gratuity, deference of encashment of unavailed earned leave wages, withheld salary of April 2006, incentive payable for the month of APril 2006 and d.a. Arrears even after completing nearly 2 years from the date of the petitioner retirement i.e, 30-04-2006 as arbitrary, unjust capricious and in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and regulation and circulars of the respondents' corporation and consequently direct the respondents to pay the above amount along with 18% interest from due date i.e, 01-05-2006 in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner retired from the service of the APSRTC, as T.I. Grade-II of Miyapur Depot, on 30.04.2006. He states that he was not extended the arrears of benefits of revision of pay scales from 01.04.2005 to 30.04.2006. The petitioner claims to have made several representations, including one dated 04.03.2008, and complains that no action has been taken thereon. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is about the non-extension of the benefits of revised pay scales. He places reliance upon on a Circular, dated 10.04.2007. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under such Circular, needs to be examined by respondents 2 and 3. They cannot keep the representation of the petitioner pending indefinitely. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondents 2 and 3 to examine the representation of the petitioner, dated 04.03.2008, with reference to the Circular No.PD- 15/2007, dated 10.04.2007, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.31.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ To 1.2CD copies