HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRI T PETI TI ON No.17163 of 2016

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not allowing the petitioner into duty is bad, arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner into duty as per proc: dated 17.04.2012 of the 2nd respondent herein and pass such other order or orders which this court deems fit and proper"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao submits that petitioner was appointed as Contract driver in the month of April, 2010 through regular selection process and due to ill-health of his father, he could not attend to his duties. Basing on the unauthorized absence, the respondent Corporation terminated services of the petitioner on 02.12.2011 vide proceedings dated P3/1(80)/2010 UPL. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.01.2012 before respondent No.2 for re-engaging him into service as contract driver. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 passed order dated 17.04.2012 modifying the termination order dated 02.12.2011 passed by respondent No.3, on humanitarian grounds, thereby, re-engaging the petitioner into service as contract driver subject to the conditions mentioned therein. When petitioner approached the authorities concerned, they refused to permit him to join duty on the sole ground that he has not reported to duty within the stipulated time, as directed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, in W.P.No.22476 of 2017 dated 19.09.2023, this Court directing respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner therein.

4. Per contra, Ms. Sai Mahitha, learned counsel representing Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation submits that respondent No.2 modified the termination order passed by respondent No.3 on humanitarian grounds and in spite of the same, petitioner has not reported to duties hence, he is not entitled for any relief much less than the relief.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the termination order dated 02.12.2011 passed by respondent No.3 was modified by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 17.04.2012 with following conditions.

1. Re-engage as Driver on contract basis.

2. He shall pay fresh security deposit.

3. He shall produce No Due Certificate from DM (UPL).

4. He shall be re-engaged after obtaining fresh agreement on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper.

5. Before taking him on duty, he shall be directed to APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka, for medical examination to know his fitness for A1 category.

6. He is directed to report to the Regional Manager, Hyderabad Region, for further posting orders.

6. However, the petitioner has not reported to duty within the stipulated time and basing on the same, respondent corporation has not permitted the petitioner to join the duty. It is an undisputed fact that this Court in similar circumstances, disposed of the writ petitions and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner on contract basis afresh subject to medical fitness and consider the claim of the petitioner therein.

7. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of order in W.P.No.22476 of 2017 dated 19.09.2023 directing the respondents to appoint petitioner as contract driver, subject to medical fitness, etc in terms of the conditions imposed by respondent No.2 herein dated 17.04.2012 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

8. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

____________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date:09.04.2025

HK

HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRI T PETI TI ON No.17163 of 2016 DATE:09