IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 409 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/02/2008 in WP NO: 14380 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20. 2) The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nizamabad-I Depot, Nizamabad. ... APPELLANTS AND Abdul Kareem S/o. Abdul Sallam, R/o. H.No.8-4-38/A3, Dharugalli, Nizamabad-503001. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following: Oral Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by an interim order dated 22.2.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in WVMP No.65 of 2008 in WPMP No.18070 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.14380 of 2007, this appeal has been filed by the employer – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer of the appellant employer to vacate the order dated 06.7.2007 passed in WPMP No.18070 of 2007. 2. According to the interim order dated 06.7.2007 passed in WPMP No.18070 of 2007, the remaining amount of retiral benefits is to be paid by the appellant employer to the respondent employee. 3. It is the case of the appellant employer that by virtue of the order dated 02.8.2005 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7797 of 2003, a sum of Rs.3,14,090/- is to be recovered from the respondent employee whereas the amount payable by the appellant employer to the respondent employee is only Rs.2,55,875/- and, thus, nothing is required to be paid to the respondent, but, in fact, some amount is to be recovered by the appellants from the respondent. 4. If the above fact is correct, needless to say that nothing is required to be paid by the appellants to the respondent and it would be open to the appellants to recover the amount from the respondent if any amount has already been paid to him in excess. 5. With the above clarification, the appeal is disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ April 21, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs