THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 9387 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the 1st respondent Regional Manager of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nizamabad in not settling the petitioner’s service benefits amounting to Rs.2,16,000/- as bad and unjust. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in paragraph 5, it has been pointed out that the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs. 1,16,504/- towards gratuity and the same was paid through a cheque drawn on 23.09.2009. A sum of Rs.33,602/- was paid though a cheque drawn on 31.08.2009, representing staff benevolent trust amount. He was also paid a sum of Rs.49,856/- towards leave encashment through a cheque drawn on 15.01.2010 and that he has also been paid a further sum of Rs.52,310/- towards staff retirement benefit scheme through a cheque drawn on 31.10.2009. It was also pointed out that the employee’s contribution and the employer’s contribution to the provident fund account of the petitioner as on 30.06.2003 worked out to Rs. 82,207/- and that the said provident fund accumulation with interest payable worked out to Rs.1,43,803/- as on 31.01.2010 and a sum of Rs.49,238/- was remitted on behalf of the petitioner to the pension scheme. It was also pointed out that the writ petitioner has withdrawn a sum of Rs.48,100/- from the provident fund as on 31.10.2005 and a further sum of Rs.30,000/- was withdrawn by him on 10.07.2009 and together with the interest component on the above referred two sums worked out to Rs.95,420/- and since there was certain dispute with regard to his entitlement to continue in service beyond a particular point, the contribution of the employers has to be re-worked out. Hence, the amount has been withheld. It is pointed out that as per the procedure in vogue, the interest component on the withdrawals affected by the petitioner from out of his provident fund amount has been worked out and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to or liable to be paid any further sum. Further, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, at my request, has furnished a copy of the settlement dues of the petitioner. The statement of settlement filed by the learned Standing Counsel is also taken on record. Since this factual statements have not been disputed by the petitioner, I do not consider that this is an appropriate case where the action of the respondents, should be found fault with. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is certainly open to the petitioner to file a detailed representation together with necessary work sheet comprising calculations made by him as to his entitlement for any further benefits. If any such representation is filed, I am sure the same will receive appropriate attention at the hands of the respondents and would be settled in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months thereof. With this, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 18th January 2011 ksld