S.K.G.B. Saheb, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.K.G.B. SAHEB,, S LO ALEEM, AGED ABOUT 58 YE A RS, RTD. DY. SUPERINTENDEN T (P)- E.NO.354235 (RETIRED O N VOLUNTARY BASIS) RTC DEPOT, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. RIO D.NO. 121175/1, 6TH LINE, MADDINAGAR, CHILAKALURIPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT - 52261 6

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE O F ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. B Y ITS PRL. SECRETARY, R OADS AND BUILDINGS TRAN S PORT (RTC) DEPARTMENT, A P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRIC T - 522238.

¶14

THE A P S R T C, REP., BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN A N D MANAGING DIRECTOR, RTC H OUSE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRI C T -520013.

¶15

THE DISTRICT P UBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, A.P.S.R.T.C., BAPATLA, BAPAT L A DISTRICT- 522101.

¶16

THE DEPOT M A NAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., BAPAT L A, BAPATLA DISTRICT -522101 .

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Petition under Artic l e 226 of the Constitution of India pr a ying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hig h Court may be

¶19

pleased to issue Writ or Order more in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not granting and releasing the payment of Additional Monetary Benefit pertains to the left over service of 7 years and 5 months and other retirement benefits which I am entitled, in terms of Regulation 6(1)(b)(c) A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith release the above amounts together with interests on delayed payments to the petitioner and pass such

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dt.15-04-2026 for releasing left over service benefits (A.M.B.) and other retirement benefits which I am entitled, pending disposal of the above W.P. and pass such

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.EADARA PEDDANNA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 18931 OF 2026

¶28

ORDER:-

¶29

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned action of the Respondents in not releasing the retirement benefits in terms of Regulation 6(1)(b)(c) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

The Petitioner had originally appointed as a Conductor on 18.02.1988 in Respondent/ Corporation. Subsequently, the Petitioner was promoted in various cadres such as Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant and Deputy Superintendent (P) during the course of his employment. After serving 35 years in the Respondent/ Corporation, the Petitioner was permitted to retire from service on voluntary basis on 28.01.2023. At the time of retirement, the Petitioner had 7 years and 5 months of service in the Respondent/ Corporation. As per Regulation 6(1)(b)(c) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, those who are permitted to retire from service on voluntary basis between 5 to 10 years are entitled to 20 days wages for each year for service left over.

¶31

In that context, the Petitioner had submitted a representation dated 15.04.2026 seeking for payment of additional monetary benefit and other retirement benefits. As the said representation could not be considered, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶32

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits

¶33

that the Respondent/ Corporation would examine the representation and appropriate orders will be passed as expeditiously as possible.

¶34

Recording the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 15.04.2026 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event, the Petitioner is held to be entitled for additional monitory benefits; the same shall be released within further period of three (03) months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶37

Date: 13.07.2026

¶38

KK

¶39

Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

S.K.G.B. Saheb, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K.G.B. Saheb, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arigela Sai Srinivas Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr G a Augustine Raj Vs the State of Ap

Y.U.V.S. Gopala Krishna Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Venkatarao Vs The State of A.P

Syed. Karimullah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ghouse Mohiddin Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh