Telangana High Court
WP/40851/2014 of Balisetty Narayana Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 31 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.40851 OF 2014 ORDER: The petitioner is a retired Deputy Superintendent (Mech), APSRTC. He filed the present Writ Petition questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in not taking steps to settle his FPS in spite of the letter addressed by the
WRIT PETITION NO.40851 OF 2014
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner is a retired Deputy Superintendent (Mech), APSRTC. He filed thepresent Writ Petition questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in not takingsteps to settle his FPS in spite of the letter addressed by the respondent No.1 on03.06.2014. He retired from the service from the respondent Corporation on30.06.2013 at Ongole Depot on attaining the age of superannuation. After hisretirement, the respondent Corporation had settled all claims and arranged thepayments except the FPS claim, which is linked to pension scheme. The respondentNo.5 recovered the PF amount from the petitioner and sent the same to therespondent No.4. The FPS claim of the petitioner was returned by the respondentCorporation informing that the respondent No.2 has returned the claim for want offresh staff number in connection with the settlement of pension since the staffnumber 059474, which was allotted to the petitioner, was already settled earlier inanother’s name i.e., Sk. M.Basha, driver of Madanapalle Depot during the year2008. It is submitted by the petitioner that basing on his representation a fresh staffnumber i.e., 627432 was allotted and he resubmitted his claim through therespondent No.5 on 25.04.2014 to the respondent No.2. Even after the lapse ofseveral months, the pension of the petitioner was not settled and thereafter, thepetitioner submitted an application under the R.T.I. Act seeking information relatingto his FPS settlements, but the third respondent through his letter dated 19.04.2014stated that his case is forwarded to the second respondent and the same is underprocess. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the first respondent for settlementof his FPS claim and the first respondent in turn vide his letter dated 03.06.2014addressed to the second respondent brought to his notice about the allotment ofdouble staff numbers erroneously and informed about the issuance of new staffmember to the petitioner and enclosed all the relevant documents pertaining to thepetitioner and requested to sanction the FPS claim at the earliest under informationto his office. The second respondent even after receipt of the letter dated 03.06.2014kept quiet and has been dodging the matter on one pretext or the other.
Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedCounsel appearing for the respondents.
Under the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to settle the FPSclaim of the petitioner basing on the letter addressed by the first respondent to himwithin two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly at the stage of the admission.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
______________
R.KANTHA RAO, J
Date: 31.12.2014
MVA