IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17235 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Abdul Hameed S/o.late Mohd. Abdul Razzak R/o.H.No.4-54-153, Maqdom Nagar, Jagatgiri gutta, Hyderabad, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Tandur Depot, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT 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 Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent with holding the gratuity after the retirement of the petitioner from his service due to the false report of the internal audit, by issuing letter No.P1/756(2)/07 Tandur, dated 31.7.2008 ignoring the reports of the depot auditors, internal audit and central audit who had ﬁxed the ﬁxation and granted increments every year since more than (14) years after veriﬁcation of the 'P' case and records whereas the petitioner was working on diﬀerent post such as conductor, controller/ADC and DC/TI-III, during this 14 years of service, is as illegal and just contrary to law against the gratuity Act 1972 by directing to the respondent to release the gratuity amount to the retired petitioner and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.03.2007. He was paid all the retirement beneﬁts, but the gratuity was withheld. The respondent passed an order, dated 31.07.2008, stating that in the audit of the service record of the petitioner, it was found that he was paid a sum of Rs.1,24,396/- in excess of his entitlement, which is traceable for the period form 05.06.1984 to 06.01.1991. It was also pointed out that the petitioner is entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.1,12,250/-, towards gratuity. But in view of the dues recoverable from him, not only the gratuity was denied to him, but also the balance was sought to be recovered. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. It is strenuously contended that the petitioner was not entitled to any amount beyond his entitlement and for the past several years, no objection was raised by the audit for the emoluments paid to the petitioner. This Court cannot determine such disputed questions of fact, in case the petitioner is conﬁdent and that the arrears determined against him, namely Rs.1,24,396/- are untenable, he can certainly make a representation to the Depot Manager, or prefer an appeal before the Divisional Manager. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the respondent herein, or the Divisional Manager, narrating the grievance. As and when such application is ﬁled, necessary orders thereon shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such application. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.08.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ