IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1182 of 2009 Between: S.Sambasiva Rao S/o.Rattaiah R/o.Vutukuru Village, Gampalagudem Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Warangal Region, Warangal, Warangal District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Kothagudem Depot, Kothagudem, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not paying the additional monitory benefits to the petitioner as payable under regulation 6A (5) (b) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulation 1964 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Art.14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay additional monitory benefits immediately and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 1182 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner was appointed as driver on 9-11-1987. He was declared as unfit for the post of driver. Therefore, he applied for retirement on medical grounds. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kothagudem Depot issued proceedings dated 3-12-2003 retiring the petitioner with effect from 29-11-2003. Certain additional benefits came to be granted to the employees who retired on medical grounds under amended Regulation 6A(5) (b) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964. The amended Regulation 6A (5) (b) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees ( Service) Regulations, 1964 came into force on 8-10-2003. The petitioner retired from service on 29-11-2003. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is eligible for additional monetary benefit under the amended Regulation 6A (5) (b) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964. He issued a legal notice to the respondent Corporation claiming the additional monetary benefits. There being no action on the part of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying additional benefit as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri P. Rajiv Reddy, learned standing counsel of A.P.S.R.T.C. takes notice on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3. 4. Heard Learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that his request for grant of additional monetary benefits under amended Regulation 6A (5) (b) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees ( Services) Regulations, 1964 has not been acceded to. He seems to have issued a legal notice also. 6. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to make fresh representation to the respondent claiming additional monetary benefit under the Amended Regulation 6A (5)(b) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees ( Services) Regulations, 1964. On such representation being made the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with the Regulation in force and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 29th January, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 1182 OF 2009 29th January, 2009.