IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24621 of 1999 Between: G.Gandaiah, S/o. Lingaiah. H.No.7-1-632/601, Banjarabasthi, Bapunagar, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director Executive Director. A.P.Gen.Co., Vidyuthsoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer/TS&SS, SPSEB, Vidyuthsoudha. A.P.Gen.Co., Vidyuthsoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer/TL&SS, Metor Zone. A.P.S.E.B., Eragadda, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the para 6 of B.P.Ms.No.1131, dated 31/12/1984 is contrary to the E.P.F.Misc Provision Act, 1952, not submitted the detailed report to the 2nd Respondent by the 3rd Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Artciles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to grant the pension to the petitioner, and grant such other relief as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.PRIDHVI RAJU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MR.S.RAVINDRANATH The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare para 6 of BPMS NO.1131 dated 31.12.1984 as contrary to the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) and further, not submitting the detailed report by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died and his LRs were brought on record. It appears that the petitioner joined as Boiler Mechanic in the Hussain Sagar Power House in the year 1947 and worked for about 12 years and was retrenched on 10.9.1967 due to general retrenchment of surplus staff (Service certificate dated 13.2.1968). He was again taken into service as Boiler Foreman in the Hussain Sagar Power House, APSEB, Hyderabad from 1.5.1974 as NMR (certificate dated 23.6.1976) and again from 13.2.1978. He was again appointed as work-charged employee in the pay scale of Rs.210-5-220-6-274 and retrenchment on 28.12.1993 on the ground that the operating cost of Hussain Sagar Power House has become uneconomical. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Board has issued B.P.Ms.No.1131 dated 31.12.1984 contrary to the Act stating that the employees of the Hussain sagar Power House, Hyderabad and Ramagundam Thermal Station (A), Ramagundam, who retired under voluntary retirement scheme consequent on closure of Hussain sagar Power House and Ramagundam Thermal Station (A), during 1984 are not eligible under the scheme. As per the Act, Generation Station is also included for the purpose of application of the Act. Therefore, the action of the respondents in discriminating the case of the petitioner for the purpose of application of the Act and denial of family pension is arbitrary and illegal. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is admitted that the petitioner was an employee of Hussain Sagar Power House and was retired from service during 1967-68 under General Voluntary Scheme consequent to closure of Power House. The A.P.S.E.B has decided to reopen the Hussain Sagar Power House during 1972 due to shortage of power generation in the State. As the existing permanent staff was inadequate and required assistance, the petitioner was engaged as NMR to assist the existing permanent staff. Due to uneconomical, unreliable and defunct power house, it was decided to close the Hussain Sagar Power House again with effect from 31.8.1984 and retrenched but not from 28.12.1993 as alleged by the petitioner. Under the Act, pension is to be paid only under the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980 adopted by the APSEB subject to condition that the share of employers contribution to EPF account right from the date of admission to EPF scheme together with interest therein would be withdrawn from EPF and credited to Board’s pension fund and the share of employees contribution together with interest standing to their EPF as on 1.4.1982 will be transferred to BG/F account, whereas the petitioner has withdrawn the EPF amount. Since the EPF amount was not transferred from EPF to BG/F account along with employers share and not credited to the Board pension fund, the question of eligibility for pension does not arise. The above averments would indicate that the petitioner on retirement from service in the year 1967-68 had withdrawn all the benefits as are eligible under the law and thereafter joined as NMR and even then, the EPF amount was not transferred to the pension fund of the APSEB . Under those circumstances, the petitioner was declared as not entitled for pension etc at this length of time. In fact, he was retired from service during the year 1967-68 and thereafter in 1974 he was engaged as NMR and again retrenched and re-engaged intermittently and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for pension on par with his colleagues seems to be not correct. Further, the petitioner has not shown that any other employee who retired voluntarily or retrenched was given such benefit. Now, further adventure has been made by the petitioner by filing the writ petition challenging para 6 of the BPMS No.1131 dated 31.12.1984 as contrary to APSEB Act, 1952, which is not applicable to him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is speculative and imaginary in its nature and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioners from filing a detailed representation and on filing such representation, the respondents may consider the same sympathetically and pass appropriate orders, as per law. No costs. ___________ 27-02-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Managing Director Executive Director. A.P.Gen.Co., Vidyuthsoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer/TS&SS, SPSEB, Vidyuthsoudha. A.P.Gen.Co., Vidyuthsoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer/TL&SS, Metor Zone. A.P.S.E.B., Eragadda, Hyderabad. 4.2CD copies