THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.10534 of 2002 ORDER: Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (for short ‘the Devasthanam’) has its own transport establishment including the one for transporting the passengers from Tirupathi and various other places to Tirumala. The entire public transport establishment of the Devasthanam was merged with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation) in the year 1975. The employees of the Devasthanam, who were in the transport establishment, were made part of the Corporation establishment, subject to certain conditions. Option was given to such employees either to be governed by the conditions of service of the Devasthanam or to be governed by those of the Corporation. The petitioners opted for the latter. At the relevant point of time, the Devasthanam service conditions did not provide for payment of pension. 2. After the petitioners opted to be governed by the service conditions of the Corporation, the Government accorded permission for payment of pension to the Devasthanam employees in the year 1979. In view of that development, the petitioners were given an opportunity to revoke their options exercised by them earlier. The petitioners availed that opportunity and submitted a representation for revocation of their options with an attempt to get the pensionery benefits on par with the employees of the Devasthanam. The administration of the Corporation, at one stage, had acceded to the request of the petitioners, but however, on finding that there are difficulties in gathering the relevant material and to undertake calculations, the request of the petitioners were turned up. Hence, this petition. 3. The petitioners contend that they alone are the persons who were denied the benefit of pension on par with the employees of Devasthanam and there is absolutely no justification for the respondents in not acceding to their request. 4. On behalf of Corporation, a counter affidavit is filed. It is admitted that the request of the petitioners was acceded to in principal. However, it is stated that on finding that there are certain difficulties in arriving at the correct facts and figures, the request was turned out. 5. Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned counsel for the Corporation. 6. Eversince the merger of the transport division of the Devasthanam with the Corporation has taken place, efforts were made to protect the service conditions of such employees. The option was given either to abide by the service conditions of the Devasthanam or those of the Corporation. Quite large number of employees have chosen to be governed by the service conditions of the Devasthanam. The petitioners are just a miniscule minority, who have opted to be governed by the service conditions of the Corporation, one important factor is that the Devasthanam service conditions did not provide for payment of pension at the relevant point of time. Subsequently, when the payment of pension was provided for the employees of Devasthanam, in all fairness, the Corporation gave an opportunity to the petitioners to revoke the option exercised by them earlier. The petitioners made representations to permit them to revoke the options. The office of the Regional Manager, Nellore issued proceedings, dated 25.3.1988, intimating that the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation has permitted the petitioners to revoke the earlier option. It is in this context that the petitioners submitted representations revoking their option to abide by the service conditions of the Corporation. However, when it came to the question of implementation, the Corporation took a totally different stand. The sole basis for not acceding to the request of the petitioners is that the records pertaining to the service of the petitioners from the year 1975 onwards are not available. 7. The only difference that would occur on account of acceding to the request of the petitioners would be that they would be required to refund any amount that was paid in lieu of pension and thereafter the petitioners would be entitled to be paid pension on par with the employees of the Devasthanam. It is not as if this exercise being undertaken for the first time. Quite large number of employees, similarly situated as the petitioners, are being extended that facility. Even if the relevant records are not available on certain minute aspects, it is just and reasonable that a conclusion can be arrived at, even while concentrating on the principal aspect of sanctioning pension on refund of the amount paid in lieu of pension by the petitioners. Further, the petitioners can be required to furnish the particulars relating to bus passes, scholarships, if any, duly incorporating a condition that if the information so furnished is found to be incorrect, the penal consequences would entail. 8. It is brought to the notice of this Court under identical circumstances, Writ Petition No.7554/91 was allowed by this court on 28.02.1994 and the directions issued therein were complied with. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and is directed that a) The A.P.S.R.T.C shall permit the petitioners to revoke the options given by them earlier and to opt for being governed by the service conditions of the employees of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam; b) The petitioners shall be under obligation to refund any amount, that is paid to them in lieu of pensionary benefits, scholarships etc., which an employee who has opted to be governed by the conditions of service of A.P.S.R.T.C is entitled to; c) In case, the respondents do not have the concerned documents or data, they can require the petitioners to file affidavits furnishing the necessary information by incorporating a clause to the effect that in case the information so furnished is found to be incorrect, the corresponding amount shall be liable to be recovered from the amount payable towards pension together with penalty, if any; d) The exercise indicated above shall be completed within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 20th January, 2011 VJL/KTL