HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1780 of 2005 Date: June 25, 2010 Between: Md. Khaja, S/o.Md. Boran Sab, aged 48 years, Occ: Sramik, Pargi Depot, R/o.1-5-451, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad … Petitioner And The Depot Manager, ASPRTC, Pargi Depot, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District, and another … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with a prayer as under: “For all the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the full salary to the petitioner as per his seniority as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and with a consequential direction to the respondents immediately to pay the full salary to the petitioner as per his earlier seniority as driver and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The petitioner was initially appointed as Driver in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1980. During his service, on the ground that his vision was defective, he was retired on medical grounds. At the time of retirement, he was paid additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment. The petitioner has accepted the same along with other benefits paid to him. Subsequently, he filed W.P.No.17061 of 2003 seeking alternative employment. This court, in the said writ petition, passed orders directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for providing alternative employment. When his claim was being considered, he also filed C.C.No.1019 of 2005. During pendency of contempt proceedings, order dated 16-09-2004 was passed appointing the petitioner as Shramik and posted in Pargi Depot. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though his basic pay is shown as Rs.7,135/- in the pay-slip issued for the month of November, 2004, in-fact, he is only paid Rs.5,275.20 ps. It is his case that he is not being paid full salary as per the entitlement in the category of Shramik. A counter affidavit is filed by Law Officer, APSRTC, on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that in view of the representation made by the petitioner, he was retired from service on medical grounds. It is further stated that he received all the amounts, which are settled, in view of his retirement, i.e., gratuity, provident fund, terminal benefits etc. It is also stated that as the petitioner was retired on medical grounds, he was also sanctioned compensation under APSRTC Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme. It is stated that apart from normal benefits which are payable to the petitioner, he has also been paid additional monetary benefit. The counter affidavit further states that after availing all the said benefits, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17061 of 2003 and in view of the directions issued therein, he was appointed as Shramik subject to the condition of his repaying all the benefits which he availed in view of his retirement on medical grounds. With regard to salary particulars, it is stated that, earlier, basic pay of the petitioner was Rs.7,135/- and presently he is drawing salary of Rs.6,665/- in addition to personal pay of Rs.470/- and his salary is not reduced, as alleged. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the basic pay of the petitioner was Rs.7,315/- before his retirement, on medical grounds. At the time of his retirement, he had received all the benefits on account of retirement and also additional monetary benefit. Having received the said amounts, he approached this court and in view of the directions of this court, he was appointed as Shramik. When the petitioner has secured alternative employment in another post and has also received additional monetary benefit, respondents are recovering the money, which was already paid to him, in lieu of employment, earlier. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that respondents are not paying full salary to the petitioner as per his entitlement. It is to be seen that the petitioner retained with him the amount paid to him towards additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment and also obtained orders from this court and secured employment. Having secured alternative employment, he cannot withhold the amount of additional monetary benefit already paid to him. As alternative employment is provided to the petitioner subsequent to payment of additional monetary benefit, respondents are right in recovering the same from the petitioner and hence it cannot be said that the respondents are not paying full salary as per his entitlement. For the foregoing reasons, no relief as sought, can be granted and the writ petition is liable to dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. But, however, as it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents are recovering more amount than actually recoverable from the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation to the respondents as regards quantum of recovery being made. If any such representation is made, I am sure that the respondents will look into the matter and do the needful in accordance with law. No costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 25, 2010 MRR