THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WP No. 532 of 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Appayya Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 to 4. The three writ petitioners have retired from service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on voluntary basis after they were subjected to medical examination which revealed that they were not fit for continuing as drivers. Therefore, they prayed for the benefits to be accorded in terms of the Circular dated 8.10.2003. Complaining that the dependant children of the writ petitioners have not been provided with employment and that the corporation has also not settled the benefits in terms of amended Regulation 5(b), the present writ petition has been instituted. It is appropriate to notice that the Board of Directors of the Corporation through Resolution No. 128/2003, dated 28.7.2003 accorded approval for amending Regulation 6A(5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 providing better benefits to medically unfit drivers. Accordingly, the amended regulations are notified on 8.10.2003. Regulation 6A(5)(b) is relevant for out enquiry. It reads: “Reg.6A(5)(b) – In the case of retirement of a Driver on medical grounds he may be extended all terminal benefits from an Ex- gratia payment equivalent to One and Half month’s emoluments (Pay+DA) last drawn, for each completed year of service or the monthly emoluments at the time of retirement on medical grounds multiplied by the balance months of service left before normal date of retirement whichever is less. Service of more than 6 months shall be treated as one year.” It is significant to note that as per this notification, certain financial benefits are sought to be accorded to such of those drivers who have been rendered unfit. The respondents have filed their counter in the matter. In paragraph (5), it is asserted as under: “5. I submit that prior to the issue of the above said Circular No. PD-40/2005 dated 26.8.2005, the Medical Retirement Benefits have already been paid to the petitioners who are medically unfit drivers. Further, the receipt of the said circular, immediately the difference of benefit accrued to the petitioners was also paid as shown hereunder: S.No. Name and Staff No. Medical benefit paid Retirement Total Prior to Amended Regulations On receipt of Amended Regulations 1 B.S.Narayana, E.111091 Rs.89,358.00 Rs.1,07,007.00 Rs.1,96,365.00 2 V.A.Narayana, E.454299 Rs.71,262.00 Rs.67,669.00 Rs.1,38,931.00 3 R.N.Rao, E.104014 Rs.1,54,254.00 Rs.68,010.00 Rs.2,22,264.00 The particulars of payment that have been effected are therefore not in dispute. When once the petitioners have accorded the necessary financial benefits in terms of the amended regulations notified on 8.10.2003, the contention that no such benefits have been accorded to them is not based upon proper foundations. The other claim of the petitioners that one of their dependants must be provided an alternative employment, there is no such compulsion in the amended regulations. In the absence of any such regulation or policy decision of the corporation, the employees cannot maintain any writ for the said purpose. Therefore, I do not find any merit or justification behind the claim made by the writ petitioners in this regard. The retirement of the writ petitioners which was prompted by the loss of standards of physical fitness did not enure in securing employment to their dependants automatically. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. But, however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 24th August 2010