IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9429 of 2008 Between: N.Yehoshuva S/o.John O/o. APSRTC, Addanki Depot, Prakasam District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Addanki Depot, Addanki, Prakasam District. 3 The SEcretary S.R.B.S., A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in deducting Rs.1812/0 per month the salary of the petitioner, from January 2008 and ordering to recover Rs.21,740/- in 12 monthly instalments as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art. 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to refund the same to the petitioner with an interest of 12% per annum and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner is working as Leading Hand, in the Addanki Depot of APSRTC. He feels aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent, in making deduction of Rs.1,812/- per month, from his salary, with effect from January 2008, towards Staff Retirement Benefit Fund. The petitioner contends that the monthly contribution from an employee towards the fund is only Rs.100/-, whereas, the 2nd respondent is making deduction of excessive amount. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a member of the Staff Retirement Benefit Fund. The contribution by the petitioner for that fund is Rs.100/- per month. However, the record discloses that the petitioner was removed from service on 3.9.1993, and was reinstated only on 31.8.2001. During that period, no contributions were recovered from the petitioner. With a view to make good the defaulted part of the contribution, the respondents are affecting deduction of Rs.1,812/-, per month. The deduction is neither towards any penalty, nor for remittance into any other account. It is for the benefit of the petitioner alone. All the same, having regard to the fact that the net salary of the petitioner, as of now, is roughly Rs.2,000/-, such a heavy deduction would leave the petitioner virtually without any workable salary. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the respondents shall affect deduction of Rs.500/- and the corresponding fraction, per month, towards the arrears of contribution of the petitioner to the Staff Retirement Benefit Fund, with effect from May 2008. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 28th April 2008 PAN