IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6893 of 2008 Between: 1 Estharaiah S/o. balaiah, R/o. 7-94, Old Bazar, Badapally, Jedcherla, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 N. Venkataiah, S/p./ Narsappa, R/o. Flat No.100, Nrinivasnagar Colony, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 Md. Basheeruddin S/o. Mohd. Ghouse, R/o. 1-3-114/4, Saddal Gundu, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Director. 2 The Provident Fund Organization rep. by its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishyanidi Bhavan, Regional Office, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund Office, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not taking into consideration petitioners' option for higher pension as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the pension at the rate of higher amounts in the Revised Pay Scales 2005 forthwith 12% interest per annum, basing upon the higher options made by the petitioners by issuing revised PPOS'. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.VENKAT RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioners retired from service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. While in service, they opted to be governed by a scheme for payment of pension and accordingly, they made contributions also. It is stated that relatively higher amounts were deducted towards contribution and the Provident Fund Organization, the second respondent, is entrusted the duty of enforcing the scheme. After retirement, the pension of the petitioners was fixed. According to them, the pension determined in their cases is not commensurate with the scheme as well as the contributions made by them. The petitioners claim to have made representations pointing out their grievances and complain that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The scheme introduced by the Corporation stipulates a formula for fixation of pension as well as the contributions made by the employees, while in service. The question as to whether the pension determined in the case of the petitioners accords with the scheme cannot be examined by this Court, at this stage. The representations made by the petitioners cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing respondents 2 and 3 to examine the representations made by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 01.04.2008 Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}