IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14695 of 2008 Between: Sunkesula Venkata Partha Sarathi E. 060556 S/o. Krishna Murthy Retd. Sr. Asst. (P) R/o. D.No. 18/87-A, Bommala Street, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kunrool Region, Kurnool District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Nandyal Depot, Nandyal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue any writ order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus the action of the respondents in not paying leave encashment in pursuance of the Orders in WP No. 8568/1983 dt. 5-3-1984 and Award dt. 26-7-2001 and ID NMo. 230/1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal -Cum-Labour Court, Anantapur is illegal, arbitrary unjust, discrimination and in violation of Regulation -25(1) & 50(B) of the APSRTC Employees (Leave) Regulations, 1963 and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.GOPALAKRISHNAMACHARYULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner took voluntary retirement from service of the APSRTC, with effect from 15.02.2008. The respondents extended certain benefits to him on retirement. The petitioner, however, states that he was not extended the benefit of leave encashment for a period of 15 years, in two spells, during which he was out of service. He made a representation on 17.04.2008, in this regard. Thereupon, the respondent addressed a letter, dated 15.05.2008, requiring the petitioner to furnish the particulars. The petitioner is said to have furnished the same on 28.05.2008. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. On their part, the respondents have extended the benefits, which according to them are payable to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled for the leave encashment for the periods from 01.02.1978 to 25.04.1984 and 03.09.1992 to 23.01.2002, during which he was out of service, but was reinstated subsequently by the orders of the Labour Court. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of leave encashment needs to be examined by the respondents. The representation submitted by the petitioner cannot be kept pending, indefinitely. The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner for leave encashment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:10.07.2008 GJ