IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 21786 of 2000 BETWEEN: Smt V Samanthakamani W/o late V V S N Raju R/o Chinna Pulleru, Undi Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation rep by its Managing Director Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20 2 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 3 The Secretary A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Employees Provident Fund Trust, Mushirabad, 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 call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring that the action of the Respondents in not sanctioning family Pension to the petitioner consequent on the death of her husband on 7/1/1999 is illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, inviolation of principloes of natural justice and violative of Articles. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondents in not sanctioning family pension to her, consequent to the death of her husband on 7th January 1999, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the late husband of the petitioner Sri V.V.S.N.Raju, was appointed in the Corporation on 14.10.1968 and his services were regularized as a Conductor with eﬀect from 22nd February 1971. It is stated that during his lifetime, he had not opted for the family pension scheme, which came into force with eﬀect from 1st of March 1971. In the counter, it is admitted that for certain period, deductions to the tune of Rs.1998.25 ps., were made in the provident fund account of the deceased employee towards the Family Pension Scheme, but however, on noticing that it was wrongly recovered, the entire amount was credited to the provident fund account of the deceased employee by granting periodical interest on the said amount. After the death of the petitioner’s husband, a total amount of Rs.21,832/- was refunded to the petitioner on 03.09.2002, vide cheque No.156820, dated 26.08.2002. 3. As much as it is stated that the late husband of the petitioner had not opted to become the member of the Family Pension Scheme, and as the amount recovered was totally refunded along with interest, and the same was already received by the petitioner subsequent to ﬁling of the writ petition, the petitioner is not entitled for any direction for grant of family pension. 4. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th November 2008 ajr