M. Gangaram v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.11213 OF 2011 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed praying to grant the following relief: "... to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 30.11.2010 and in not permitting the petitioner to join duty as Carpenter is arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.11.2010 and permit the petitioner to join duty as Carpenter under the control of the 3rd respondent and also consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation with similarly placed contract workmen of Civil Engineering Department under the respondent Corporation and pass such other order or orders as just and necessary in the circumstances of the case."

2.

Though both learned counsel sought to argue on merits, it is seen that admittedly representation dated 30.11.2010 submitted by the petitioner is not disposed of. It is not in dispute that the petitioner absented from duties for a period of two years. Claiming that he was ill and therefore could not attend to duties, after recouping from illness, representation dated 30.11.2010 was submitted.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that other persons, who were appointed along with the petitioner or later, are still working with the respondent - Corporation and respondent -Corporation continues to engage workmen on contract

basis through third party contract agency even now. Thus, he would submit that if the representation is considered by the respondent - Corporation, at least some kind of relief would be met to him.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Corporation agreed for the disposal of the Writ Petition in the above lines. 5.

Having regard to the said submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.11.2010 and pass appropriate orders as warranted in accordance with the procedure envisaged by the respondent - Corporation, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:17.09.2016 KH