IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 511 of 2009 Between: G. Tholisamma W/o. Late Sambasiva Reddy Thodendlapalli, Chagalmarri Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer (Projects), A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad. 3 Secretary, PF Trust, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mushirabad, Hyderabad. .....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 appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Corporation in not considering petitioner's case as being illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 24 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATA RAMAIAH KARUMURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 511 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Smt. G.Tholisamma assailing the action of the respondents in not releasing the death cum retiral benefits in respect of her husband namely G.Sambasiva Reddy. 2. Sri G. Sambasiva Reddy worked as contract employee with the 2nd Respondent and he died on 9-10-2001, survived by a son and a daughter aged 10 and 6 years respectively, and wife who is no other than the petitioner. The petitioner submitted representation dated 5-11-2001 for settlement of retiral benefits. Her representation remained unattended. She got issued legal notice dated 1-12-2008 to the respondents for settlement and terminal benefits. There being no action, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission Smt. M.V.S. Rajeswari takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. The factual aspect that husband of the petitioner worked as contract labour with the 2nd respondent is not in dispute. 5. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for terminal benefits, if she is otherwise eligible, and pass appropriate orders. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 21st January, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 511 OF 2009 21st January, 2009.