THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30335 of 2011 ORDER: 1 Petitioner filed this Writ Petition with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not arranging payment of difference of Gratuity, Earned Leave Encashment, Settlement salary and difference of Pay consequent on Revision of Pay Scales, 2009 to the petitioner who retired from service on 28.02.2010 and also charge allowance for discharging the duties of Depot Clerk (General) from December 2008 to February 2010, as unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein to arrange payment of retirement benefits i.e. difference of Gratuity, Earned Leave Encashment, Settlement salary and difference of Pay consequent on Revision of Pay Scales, 2009 to the petitioner who retired from service on 28.02.2010 and also charge allowance for discharging the duties of Depot Clerk (General) from December 2008 to February 2010, along with 12% interest from 01.03.2010 and pass such other order or orders as just and proper in the interest of justice.” 2 The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as conductor on 11.01.1980 in the respondent Corporation and after putting 27 years of service he retired from service on 28.02.2010. His grievance is that he has not been paid difference of Gratuity, Earned Leave Encashment, Settlement salary and difference of Pay consequent on Revision of Pay Scales, 2009 and also charge allowance for discharging the duties of Depot Clerk (General) from December 2008 to February 2010. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that consequent to his retirement, the petitioner made a representation dated 27.02.2011 to the third respondent and the same is pending with the third respondent i.e. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Midhani depot, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, but so far, no orders have yet been passed on the said representation. 4 Heard Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent – Corporation. 5 Having regard to the fact that the representation dated 27.02.2011 given by the petitioner, in connection with the settlement of his retirement benefits, is still pending before the third respondent, this Writ Petition, without going into the merits, is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the said representation given by the petitioner dated 27.02.2011 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ----------------------- G. CHANDRAIAH, J. 16.11.2011 Kvsn