IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27001 of 2008 Between: Mohammed Khan S/o.Late Kareemullah Khan R/o.Utnoor village & Mandal Adilabad District ..... PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep by its Depot Manager, Nirmal, Adilabad District .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction by declaring the action of the respondent in not releasing the pension and pensionary benefits ,to the petitioner even though the petitioner retired from service w.e.f.30.4.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional being violative of Articles, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to release the pension and pensionary benefits i.e. Gratuity P.F. Bonus, O.T.Payments, etc., to the petitioner with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.A.PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R : This writ petition has been filed by Mohammed Khan with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not releasing the pension and pensionary benefits to him even though he retired from service w.e.f. 30.04.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 2. The petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 30.04.2008. He submitted pension papers and requested the respondent to release the pension and pensionary benefits to him. Because of certain settlement recorded by the Lok Adalat, Jagtial, in respect of disputes between him, his wife and his elder daughter, the respondent expressed his inability to settle the retirement benefits. Hence, this writ petition. 3. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, learned Standing Counsel of A.P.S.R.T.C. received notice and filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner is eligible for an amount of Rs.1,01,841/- and he has been paid an amount of Rs.40,737/- and the remaining gratuity amount is to be paid to his first wife in terms of Memorandum of Understanding before the Lok Adalat, Jagtial, in M.c.No.32 of 2003. For better appreciation, I may refer para.6 of the counter-affidavit, which reads as hereunder: “6) It is humbly submitted that in view of the above two litigations, the settlements under various heads, though prepared could not made to the petitioner. The details regarding the amounts the petitioner eligible under different heads are as under: i) Gratuity: The petitioner is eligible for an amount of Rs.1,01,841/-. He has been paid an amount of rs.40,737/- and the remaining amount of gratuity is to be paid to first wife of the petitioner in terms of Memorandum of Understanding before Lok Adalat, Jagtial in M.C.No.32 of 2003. ii) The respondent has received a cheque bearing No.136214 dated 28.4.2008 for Rs.36,177/- drawn in favour of the petitioner from settlement of Provident Fund Account of the petitioner from Secretary, P.F. Trust, APSRTC. Since half of the PF amount is to be paid to the first wife of the petitioner as the Memorandum of Understanding before Lok Adalat, Jagtial, the cheque has been returned to the Secretary, P.F., Hyderabad with a request to arrange two cheques worth Rs.18,088/- each, one in favour of the petitioner and the other in favour of his 1st wife. The Secretary, P.F., Hyderabad vide his letter dated 20.10.2008 has informed that the PF settlement cannot be attached nor can be adjusted as per PF Act. In view of the above, the PF amount could not be settled. iii) OT payment: No OT claim of the petitioner is pending for settlement in this office. The other amounts of settlement due are Terminal Leave Encashment Rs.16,040/-, Settlement salary Rs.1917/-, Difference of Gratuity Rs.3119/- and S.B.T. Rs.4,990/-.” 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent need not take into consideration the Award passed by the Lok Adalat, Jagtial in M.C.No.32 of 2003, and therefore, the respondent is bound to release all retirement benefits to the petitioner. 6. A fact remains that the petitioner, his wife and his elder daughter entered into settlement and in pursuance of the settlement, an Award came to be passed by the Lok Adalat, Jagtial, in M.C.No.32 of 2003. He being a party to the settlement arrived before the Lok Adalat, cannot make a request to the respondent to ignore the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent withheld the retirement befits of the petitioner is not sustainable. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:19th January, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}