IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2165 of 2009 Between: Gousia Begam W/o. Late Mirza Afzal Baig H.No. 8-2-603/59/A, Noor Nagar Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC. Rep. by its Regional Manager Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad. 2 APSRTC. Rep. by its Depot Manager Barkatpura Bus Depot, 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 issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the terminal benefits to the petitioner for the service rendered by the petitioner's husband as the same is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to pay the terminal benefits to the petitioner for the service rendered by the petitioner's husband the date of appointment to till the date of termination i.e. 07-10-2003. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2165 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. Mirza Afzal Baig, who is husband of the petitioner, worked as a Driver in the Respondent-Corporation. The bus driven by the husband of the petitioner met with an accident. He was charge sheeted for his rash and negligent driving and he was put on trial before the X Metropolitan Magistrate and the case ended in disposal. In a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, he was found guilty of the charge and punishment of removal came to be inflicted on him. While so, he died on 9-4-2008 because of injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 30-12-2002. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to gratuity for the service rendered by her husband in the respondent Corporation. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel of APSRTC takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for parties. 4. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husband worked for the period from 1975 to 2003 and therefore, she is entitled to claim gratuity. 5. Such is the situation, the petitioner is directed to submit representation to the respondent Corporation seeking gratuity for the service rendered by her husband. In the event of representation made by the petitioner, the respondent Corporation has to consider the same in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force within three weeks thereafter. 6. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 9th February, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2165 OF 2009 9th February, 2009.