IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 16819 of 2000 BETWEEN: Akkineni Lakshmi Manohari, W/o. Late A.Radhakrishna, Krishna District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager ,A.P.S.R.T.C., Nuzvid, Krishna District. 2 The Secretary, A.PS.R.T.C., Staff Benevolent thirft Fund, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to pass an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing Proceedings No,P.1/756(8)/99 NZD, dt18-7-200 setting an amount of Rs.2,340/- towards S.B.T.F. Scheme as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unreasonable, against the circulars and regulations framed by the A.P.S.R.T.C., Staff Benevolent-cum-Thrift scheme and Set aside the same and direct the respondents to immediately release the benefit of and amount of Rs.55,000/- with interest to the petitioner for which the petitioner is entitled under the prevailing rules of A.P.S.R.T.C. staff Benevolent cum Thrift Scheme in pursuance of various circulars issued and pay all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.MADHUSUDANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the proceedings dated 18.07.2000 issued by the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nuzvid, Krishna District, whereby she was intimated that an amount of Rs.2,340/- was settled towards Staff Benevolent-cum- Thrift Fund scheme (for short ‘the scheme’) of late A. Radha Krishna, husband of the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to release an amount of Rs.55,000/- as per the scheme on the ground that her late husband was a member of the scheme and that she is entitled for such amount. 2. As a measure of social security and charity to the families of the deceased employees, who worked in the corporation, the respondent – corporation introduced the aforesaid scheme. As per the scheme, on enrolment of an employee as a member of the scheme his monthly contribution would be deducted by the Corporation from the salary every month and in case of death of an employee, the nominee of the deceased shall be paid the amount having regard to the employee’s contribution and his length of service. 3. In the present case on hand, the case of the petitioner is that the scheme was introduced with effect from 01.02.1980 vide Circular No.PD- 124/1979-80 dated 25.01.1980 and that her husband became a member on the rolls of the scheme on 01.02.1980 and contributions have been regularly made since then. It is her further case that having regard to the length of contribution of Class – I employee and the post, which the husband of the petitioner was holding, she is entitled to a sum of Rs.55,000/-. It is her grievance that in spite of her entitlement to receive an amount to a tune of Rs.55,000/- the respondents have intimated her by way of impugned proceedings that she is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,340/- only. 4. The Law Officer of the Corporation filed a counter affidavit stating that the husband of the petitioner, who worked as Superintendent (P) was removed from service on 03.02.1995, while he was working at Machiryal Depot of Adilabad District and when he was removed from service, he was paid entire benefits under the scheme as per the procedure. While admitting that the husband of the petitioner was reinstated into service, it is stated that as much as the employee did not make any fresh application requesting for enrolment into the scheme, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the scheme. However, it is admitted that the amount deducted after the reinstatement accumulated to a tune of Rs.2,340/- and the same was offered to the petitioner but she did not receive the same. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 6. The record produced before this Court clearly goes to show that after the removal of the husband of the petitioner from service in the year 1995, the contributions made till then under the scheme were refunded to the petitioner to a tune of Rs.7,931/- vide Cheque No.016058 dated 09.05.1995 whereas it is the case of the petitioner that even after the reinstatement deductions were being made as per the scheme. 7. Though it is the case of the respondents that after reinstatement, the husband of the petitioner did not make any fresh application towards enrolment, the fact remains that after reinstatement, in the absence of any formal application towards enrolment, deductions were being made till the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner was reinstated into service in 1995 and he died on 22.04.1998. The pay slips of the deceased employee, which are filed along with the material papers, go to show that deductions have been made every month from his salary towards the scheme. If there is any requirement of submitting of a fresh application, the respondents ought to have secured such application after reinstatement. Having acted upon reinstatement and having deducted the amounts till the death of the employee, it is not open to the respondents to contend that the petitioner is not entitled for the refund of the accumulated contributions made under the scheme. As much as the settlement of amount under the scheme had already been made till the date of his removal, in view of the deductions made after reinstatement, the petitioner is entitled for the amounts as per the scheme by taking the length of service for the purpose of the scheme after the reinstatement of her late husband. Though the petitioner is claiming the total benefit of Rs.55,000/-, she cannot claim the benefits from the date of initial enrolment of her late husband as a member into the scheme as the amounts collected till removal have already been refunded at the time of removal of her husband. 8. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to treat the husband of the petitioner as a valid member of the scheme from the date of his reinstatement into service and consider the entitlement of the petitioner to the amount as per the scheme. The respondents are further directed to pass appropriate orders for taking necessary steps for payment of the amount to the petitioner and communicate the same to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months from today. Subject to the above conditions, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J January 27, 2009 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order in three days. (B/o) DSK