IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 4822 of 1999 Between: Ahmed Miya, S/o Habeeb Miya, R/o Kashmirigadda, Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Andhra pradesh, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20. 3 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Accounts Officver(EPS), MD's Office Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20. 4 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Depot Manager, Karimnagar-II Depot, Karimnagar. ...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, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of 3rd respondent in withholding the family pension of the petitioner as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, contrary to records, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.R.N.REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 4: SMT. P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.4822 OF 1999 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in withholding the family pension scheme benefits of the petitioner. 2. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner joined the services of the 2nd respondent-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation as a casual driver in the year 1967. His services were regularized from 01.03.1971 and he retired from service on 31.12.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. According to the petitioner he had become a member of the family pension scheme and certain amounts were recovered from his salary, that other co-employees who joined along with him were given the benefits of the family pension scheme and that he was unjustly denied the said benefit on the specious plea that he had not opted for the family pension scheme in the year 1971. Petitioner would contend that, if really he had not opted for the family pension scheme, the 2nd respondent-Corporation ought not to have deducted the amounts from his salary towards the family pension scheme and that, despite several representations in this regard, he has not been extended the benefits of the family pension scheme. 3. In his counter filed in April, 2008, the Accounts Officer (FPS), APSRTC, states that the petitioner did not submit his option to become a member of the family pension scheme; that on verification of the records from 01.03.1974 to 31.12.1997, it was found that there were no recoveries from the provident fund contributions of the petitioner towards the family pension scheme during the entire period of 23 years, except in the year 1974-1975; that in the year 1974-1975 an erroneous deduction had been made towards family pension scheme and an amount of Rs.39.75 ps. was deducted. The 3rd respondent would state that the amounts recovered erroneously should have been refunded along with interest at the time of settlement of P.F. amount, but inadvertently it was not done; that the said amount is liable to be refunded with interest at the rates applicable to the P.F. balances, calculated by adding interest upto 31.03.2008; that the amount payable is Rs.1,100/- towards employee’s contribution and Rs.1,100/- towards employer’s contribution, totaling to Rs.2,200/-. 4. Smt. P.Rajani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, would fairly state that the Corporation is ready and willing to refund the said amount of Rs.2,200/- to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had been unduly denied the benefit of the family pension scheme for the past several years. He would state that the petitioner had worked in several depots and that the respondents had not verified the records of other depots to ascertain whether the petitioner had, in fact, made contributions towards the family pension scheme for years other than the year 1974-1975. Learned Counsel would further state that the petitioner had made an application under the Right to Information Act seeking information regarding the Provident Fund amounts due to the Corporation and that hearing of the writ petition be deferred till the information sought for is furnished by the Corporation. 6. Since the petitioner had disputed the respondents’ claim, to have deducted the family pension scheme contribution only for the year 1974-1975, this Court directed the respondents to produce the records. The records were produced and were shown to Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner. On perusal of the records, Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao would state that while the records seem to justify the respondents’ contention of having erroneously deducted family pension scheme contribution in the year 1974-1975, the petitioner’s case was that there were several other records, which the Corporation had not made any effort to trace and, if those records are traced, they would establish that the petitioner had contributed to the family pension scheme for other years also. 7. It is well settled that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not permit the petitioner to convert proceedings before this Court into a fishing expedition or a roving enquiry. There is no evidence on record as on date to show that the Corporation had deducted family pension scheme contribution from the salary of the petitioner for any year other than the year 1974-1975. Since the writ petition relates to the year 1999 and more than 9 years have elapsed, I see no reason to defer hearing of the writ petition to await the outcome of the application filed by the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, in the year 2008. Since there is no material on record as on date to show that the respondents had deducted family pension scheme contribution for any year other than 1974-1975, I see no justification in directing the respondents to make any further payment other than Rs.2,200/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Two Hundred only), which the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has agreed shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8 . The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 03.07.2008. GS