HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 1238 of 2003 DATED: 17.02.2011 Between: N.S.R. Prasad and another .. Petitioners And 1. The A.P.S.R.T.C. 2. The Depot Manager 3. The Secretary, SRBS .. Respondents O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in recovering Rs.761/- each from the salary of the petitioners towards the house loan obtained by the Conductor - M.R.M. Rao, E-360440, who was removed from service, without there being any prior notice to the petitioners, as arbitrary and illegal and set aside the same. It appears that the petitioners are working as Conductors in APSRTC. While so, they stood as guarantors/sureties to one M.R.M. Rao, Conductor, who was granted house loan by the 3rd respondent. However, M.R.M. Rao was removed from service on 03.07.2000. Now, the petitioners’ grievance is that since the principal debtor was removed from service, the dues lying against the house loan account, are sought to be recovered from the petitioners on installment basis. Being aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. According to the petitioners, they were not issued any notice before the impugned order of recovery was passed. Secondly, even if the principal debtor – M.R.M. Rao was removed from service, the terminal benefits accrued to his account were ought to have been adjusted towards the house loan account instead of the same being recovered from the petitioners. After adjustment of such amount for which the principal debtor is liable to pay, probably the respondents are at liberty to recover the same from the petitioners. The respondents have not done this exercise, but abruptly ordered recovery of Rs.761/- each from the salary of the petitioners. This Court, on 17.03.2003, passed an order to the effect that the respondents are entitled to proceed against the petitioners for recovery of the loan amount only if the loan amount is not sufficiently recovered from the terminal benefits of the loanee – M.R.M. Rao, who was removed from service. In view of the above, nothing survives in the writ petition for further adjudication. However, it is made clear that the respondents are directed to first adjust the amounts, which M.R.M. Rao, the loanee, was liable to pay, from his terminal benefits and then recovery may be effected from the salaries of the petitioners, if necessary. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 17th February, 2011 bcj