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 : 9434 of 2008 Between: V.Ramchader S/o. V.Adiraju R/o. Post & Vill : Chotakur, Pulkal Mandal, Medak Dist. ... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyd. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Banswada, Nizamabad Dist. ...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 appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents corporation in not arranging the petitioner's amount, un- availed encashment leave wages, arrears of 2005 R.P.S and last month salary as arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to arrange the above amount along with the interest payable from the due date i.e., 01.05.2007 onwards at the rate of 18% in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2007 as Assistant Depot Clerk (ADC). He was extended most of the retirement benefits. The petitioner claims that a sum of Rs.84,676/-, representing a portion of encashment of unavailed leave, arrears of revised pay-scale, etc. were withheld. He claims to have got issued a notice, dated 24.3.2008, in this regard, and complains that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On their part, the respondents calculated the retirement benefits of the petitioner and extended the same. According to the petitioner, a further sum of Rs.84,676/- is payable to him under different heads. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the amount claimed by him, needs to be examined by the 2nd respondent. Nearly one year had elapsed, ever since the petitioner had retired, and the matter cannot be kept pending, indefinitely. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to settle the claim of the petitioner, as regards the alleged arrears of retirement benefits, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 28th April 2008 PAN