IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1334 OF 2009 Dt.18.11.2009 Between: A.P. Transco Formerly Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Rep. by its Secretary, Vidyut Soudha Hyderabad … Appellant And Smt. P. Hymavathi … Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri G. Vidya Sagar Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1334 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) The appellant filed this Writ Appeal feeling aggrieved by order dt.24.3.2009 in Writ Petition No.24079 of 1999, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent and directed the appellant to examine the claim of the respondent for pension in the light of the relevant Rules. The learned Single Judge also declared that by virtue of order in Writ Petition No.16497 of 1988, the respondent is entitled to payment of provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment in respect of the service rendered by her in the appellant organization. Having carefully gone through the order of the learned Single Judge and also the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.16497 of 1988, we do not find any error in the order under appeal. At the hearing, Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the only difficulty for the appellant to consider the claim of the respondent for payment of pension was that the Pension Rules, which were in force at the time of the respondent leaving the appellant organization, did not provide for payment of pro rata pension and that such a facility was made available only under the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, which came into force in the year 1980. In the order of the learned Single Judge, no specific finding has been given as to the respondent’s entitlement to the pension while finding that the respondent is entitled to receive provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge has left the issue of payment of pension to the respondent, to the appellant which was directed to be fixed subject to the relevant rules. Since the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the appellant to decide the respondent’s entitlement of pension in accordance with rules, there is no necessity for us to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18.11.2009 bnr