IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 988 of 2009 Between: M. Lakshmaiah, E. 250174 S/o. Mutyalu BHEL Depot. R/o. H.No. 1-58, Mallapur, ECIL Road, Hyderabad Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Vice Chairman & Managing Diretor APSRT. Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Regional Manager (RR) JBS/Picket Secunderabad. 3 The Divisional Manager R.R. Division Hyderabad. 4 The Depot Manager APSRTC. Zahirabad Depot, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the representation dated 14/10/2008 for granting the continuity of service with all terminal benefits, is arbitrary, against the law, contrary to the rules, and violative of Article 14 and 21 of constitution of India consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation, by passing suitable orders in the matter in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.K.CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 1986. His services were regularized with effect from 19.6.1987. He faced departmental enquiry for his failure to observe the rule ‘Issue and start’ and also in respect of some cash and ticket irregularities. After due enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal and his appeal came to be partly allowed and consequently, he was taken into service as a fresh appointee. The relevant portion of the order passed by the appellate authority is as hereunder: “I have gone through the review petition along with all connected records. It is a case of issue of lower denomination tickets. The spot explanation and subsequent explanation of the appellant do conform to each other. The case has been dealt at DM & DVM as per CCA Regulations. However, the amount of punishment is not commensurate with the offence committed. Hence, I am inclined to modify the punishment to meet the justice both ends by ordering the reappointment of the appellant as a fresh conductor and shall report to DVM (MDK) for further postings within seven days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the order stands cancelled. The period from the date of suspension till he reports for duty shall be treated as period ‘Not on duty’ for all purposes such as PF, Gratuity and other attendant benefits.” The petitioner reported to duty and accepted fresh appointment. He claims to have submitted a representation dated 14.10.2008 to the first respondent to treat the period of service rendered by him prior to 1994 as continuity of service for the purpose of promotion etc. Since the 1st respondent has not passed any orders on the representation, he chose to approach this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel of APSRTC received notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner rendered eight years of service prior to his taking appointment afresh. He further submits that the petitioner submitted a representation to treat the period of service rendered by him prior to 1994 as continuity of service for the purpose of promotion etc., and his representation remained un-attended. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner is a belated one and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. A fact remains that the petitioner accepted the orders passed by the revisional authority and joined as a Conductor afresh in the year 1994. He did not choose to question the order passed by the revisional authority. Submission of representation does not keep the issue alive. He having accepted the orders passed by the revisional authority and joined as a Conductor afresh cannot re-open the issue, which attained finality about 15 years back. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of laches. No costs. __________ 28-01-2009 rkk