IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5651 of 2008 Between: B. Gopal S/o B. Ramulu R/o Appajipet (ost )& (V), Nalgonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC., rep by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hdyerabad. 2 APSRTC., rep by its Regional Manager, Nalgonda Redion, Nalgonda district 3 APSRTC., rep by its Depot Manager, nalgonda Bus Depot, Nalgonda 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 will be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the of terminal benefits and the benefits under Regulations 6 A (5) of APSRTC Employees Service Regulations 1964 to the petitioner consequent to his medical retirement dated 18-10-2006 is illegal arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the respondents to pay complete terminal benefits and the benefits under Regulations 6A (5) of APSRTC., Employees Service Regulations 1964 to the petitioner consequent to his medical retirement dated 18-10-2006 is illegal arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the respondents to pay complete terminal benefits and the benefits under Regulations 1964 to the petitioner and pass such further other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Driver in the APSRTC. He was subjected to routine medical test on 05.12.2005 and was found unfit to be continued as driver. Based on the same, the respondents issued office order, dated 18.10.2006, retiring the petitioner from service on medical grounds. It is stated that the petitioner was extended the retirement benefits only to the extent of 50% and the rest was not paid till today. He claims to have made a representation, dated 07.09.2007, in this regard. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents recognized their obligation under Regulation 6A(5)(b) of the APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, and accordingly, extended the service benefits, but only to the extent of 50%. Nothing is forthcoming coming as to why the representation of the petitioner was kept pending indefinitely. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to take necessary steps on the representation, dated 07.09.2007, submitted by the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.04.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ To 1.2CD copies