IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 12898 of 2000 BETWEEN: V.V.Swamy S/o Buttaiah R/o. Bheemavaram, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Bheemavaram Depot, West Godavari District. 3 The Accounts Officer, A.P.S.R.T.C., Family Pension Scheme, Musheerabad, 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 call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the respondent in refusing to pay the family pension to the petitioner as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, and in violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, and grant all consequential beneﬁts, and to pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondents in not sanctioning family pension to him, consequent to his retirement on attaining the age of super-annuation, on 30th September 1999, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed in the service of the Corporation on 30.01.1964. It is stated that during his service, the petitioner did not opt for the family pension scheme, which came into force with eﬀect from 1st of March 1971. In the counter, it is admitted that for certain period, deductions to the tune of Rs.729/-, were made in the provident fund account of the petitioner towards the Family Pension Scheme, but however, on noticing that it was wrongly recovered, the entire amount was credited to his provident fund account along with interest on the said amount. It is stated that the total amount refundable to the petitioner was arrived at Rs.11,580/-, and accordingly, a cheque bearing No.746204, dated 24.09.2002, was forwarded to the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager for handing over the same to the petitioner. But at that stage, it was found that the petitioner was expired on 18.03.2001. Therefore, a fresh cheque, drawn for Rs.11,580/-, was handed over to Smt.V.Vazramma, wife of the petitioner, on 26.10.2002. 3. As much as it is stated that the petitioner had not opted to become the member of the Family Pension Scheme, and as the amount recovered was totally refunded along with interest, and the same was already received by the wife of the petitioner subsequent to ﬁling of the writ petition, no further directions are needed to be given in this writ petition. 4. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th November 2008 ajr