Balisetty Narayana Rao v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

THE HON'BLE 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 respondent No.1 on 03.06.2014. He retired from the service from the respondent Corporation on 30.06.2013 at Ongole Depot on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, the respondent Corporation had settled all claims and arranged the payments except the FPS claim, which is linked to pension scheme. The respondent No.5 recovered the PF amount from the petitioner and sent the same to the respondent No.4. The FPS claim of the petitioner was returned by the respondent Corporation informing that the respondent No.

2 has returned the claim for want of fresh staff number in connection with the settlement of pension since the staff number 059474, which was allotted to the petitioner, was already settled earlier in another's name i.e., Sk. M.Basha, driver of Madanapalle Depot during the year 2008. It is submitted by the petitioner that basing on his representation a fresh staff number i.e., 627432 was allotted and he resubmitted his claim through the respondent No.5 on 25.04.2014 to the respondent No.2. Even after the lapse of several months, the pension of the petitioner was not settled and thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application under the R.T.I. Act seeking information relating to his FPS settlements, but the third respondent through his letter dated 19.04.

2014 stated that his case is forwarded to the second respondent and the same is under process. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the first respondent for settlement of his FPS claim and the first respondent in turn vide his letter dated 03.06.2014 addressed to the second respondent brought to his notice about the allotment of double staff numbers erroneously and informed about the issuance of new staff member to the petitioner and enclosed all the relevant documents pertaining to the petitioner and requested to sanction the FPS claim at the earliest under information to his office. The second respondent even after receipt of the letter dated 03.06.2014 kept 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 learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

Under the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to settle the FPS claim of the petitioner basing on the letter addressed by the first respondent to him within 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