IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 34266 of 1998 Between: Smt. Jubeda Bee W/o late Syed Jaffar R/o H.No.7-4-118, Kashmirigadda, Karimnagar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner A.P. Barkatpura, Hyderabad 2 The Managing Director A.P.S.R.T.C. Corporation, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20 3 Accounts Officer (FPS), A.P.S.R.T.C. O/o The Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C, Finance Wing, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20 4 The Depot Manager O/o The Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C, Karimnagar .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to call for the records from the 3rd respondent and issue an appropriate writ , Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the Order passed by the 3rd respondent in Proc.No.FPS.71/547(1)/Misc./KRMR/98-AD dt: 18-8-1998, holding that the petitioner is not entitled for Family Pension as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, contrary to the records and voilative of Arts. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India; and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr. R.N.Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Smt. P.Rajani Reddy, Standing Counsel for APSRTC. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.34266 of 1998 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition relates to non-payment of benefits under the Family Pension Scheme to her, consequent on the demise of her husband, late Sri Syed Jaffer. Petitioner’s husband joined as a casual Driver with the respondent-Corporation in the year 1968. His services were regularized with effect from 01.03.1971 and he continued to serve the Corporation till he died, while in service, on 13.10.1990. The petitioner made a claim for payment of family pension and the Corporation, vide letter dated 18.08.1998, rejected her request stating that her husband was not a member of the family pension scheme as he did not submit any option form. 2. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very fact that the Corporation had deducted family pension scheme Contribution, every month, from the salary of the petitioner’s husband for years together, would itself show that he had exercised his option for, if he did not, there was no justification for the Corporation in deducting the said contribution from his salary. 3. The Corporation initially filed a bald and vague counter- affidavit without furnishing any details whatsoever. On being asked to look into the matter, Smt.P.Rajani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel impressed upon the officials of the Corporation the need to carry out a detailed verification of the records and, thereafter, a counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent, Accounts Officer, (F.P.S.) of the respondent-Corporation, on 13.03.2008, wherein, while tendering unconditional apology for their failure to bring to the notice of the Court at the earliest point of time the erroneous recoveries made from the salary of the husband of the petitioner towards family pension scheme, the Accounts Officer states that the earlier counter- affidavit was based on the information furnished earlier, which is evidently erroneous. It is further stated that the Corporation had effected recoveries towards family pension scheme starting from April, 1974 till March 1984 and that they had again made recoveries from April, 1988 till March, 1989 and that recoveries were made for a period of ten years. It is stated that the total amount recovered was Rs.884/-, that an equal amount was apportioned from the employer’s contribution towards F.P.S, that the amount recovered erroneously should have been refunded along with interest at the time of settlement of the P.F. amount but, by inadvertence, it was not done. It is further stated that the amount is still lying with the P.F. Trust and the amount is refundable along with the interest at the rate applicable to the P.F. by calculating and adding interest upto 31.03.2008, that the amount payable is Rs.14,148/- towards employee’s contribution and Rs.14,148/- towards employer’s contribution, totalling to Rs.28,296/-. 4. Smt. P.Rajani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel would state that the Corporation is ready and willing to pay this amount of Rs.28,296/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. While Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would insist that the petitioner be extended family pension scheme benefits, the fact remains that the Corporation has retained the amount and has not forwarded the amounts recovered from the petitioner along with its contribution to the Commissioner of Provident Fund (1st respondent herein) and, inasmuch as the Commissioner, Provident Fund has not received even a single rupee from the Corporation, they cannot be mulcted with any liability with regards payment of the benefits under the family pension scheme. 6. The earlier counter-affidavit filed by the Corporation, viewed in the light of the counter affidavit now filed on 13.03.2008, would reflect the casual manner in which the Corporation has been dealing even with cases of this nature where a poor widow is crying hoarse for payment of certain amounts due to her on the death of her husband. Such casual and indifferent attitude of the officials in authority would not only invites censure from this Court but would necessitate serious action being taken against them. While this Court was initially of the view that action should be taken against the officer who filed the counter-affidavit earlier, the fact remains that pursuant to the efforts put in by Smt. P.Rajani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and the counter-affidavit filed by Sri S.V.Narsa Raju, the present Accounts Officer, the entire facts have been placed before this Court, even if it has been done belatedly. I consider it appropriate, therefore, not to proceed further against the officer who filed the counter-affidavit earlier in February, 2008. 7. It cannot, however, be lost sight of that the casual manner in which the entire affair has been dealt with by the Corporation, in denying the amount legitimately due to the petitioner, has caused untold hardship and misery to her and her family. The only manner in which the petitioner can be financially compensated, at least to a limited extent, is by imposition of exemplary costs, which is quantified at Rs.7,500/-. In addition to the amount which the Corporation now admits that it is willing to pay the petitioner of Rs.28,296/- (Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Six only), the Corporation shall, in addition, pay Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) to her by way of exemplary costs. The entire amount referred to hereinabove shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The Writ Petition is allowed with exemplary costs as indicated above. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 19.06.2008 GS