IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8553 of 2008 Between: P. Ramavatharam, S/o. Late P. Subba Rao R/o. 1-11-109/15-16, Pusp Vatika, Bombay Halwa Compound, Via RBI Quarters, Begumpet, Hyderabad-5000016. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Dept. (Ser.) A.P., Secretariat rep. by its Spl. Chief Secretary, Hyderabad. 2 The Managing Director, A.P. Transco, Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 3 Govt. of A.P. Finance & Planning Dept. (Pension-I) Rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, 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 or order particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings dt. 26.07.2007 vide Memo No.8702/Ser/2005 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14, 21 & 300A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and further direct respondents to pay benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.228 dt. 25.11.1967. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.S.RAMCHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENERGY The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was in the service of Government of Andhra Pradesh between 1961 and 1972. Thereafter, he has opted to be in the service of B.H.P.V. Limited, a Government of India Organization. He retired from service from that organization in the year 1995. Retirement benefits were extended to him by the B.H.P.V. Limited for the service rendered in that organization. The petitioner made a claim for payment of pension for the period during which he rendered service in the Government. The first respondent passed an order, dated 26.07.2007, rejecting the claim of the petitioner and the same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The claim of the petitioner is for a block period during which he rendered service in the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, mandates that any claims as regards the civil service in the State shall be adjudicated by the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has to work out his remedies before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23.07.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}