HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 13310 of 2009 Date: 21.12.2009 Between: P.Pandu, Mediak District and 3 others. … Petitioner And APSRTC., rep. By its Managing Director, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 13310 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 2 to 4 herein claim to be the legal representatives of one P.Pandu ( 1st petitioner in this writ petition) who was working as a Driver with the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order of the 3rd respondent dated 05.07.2008 whereunder P.Pandu was removed from service is arbitrary and illegal and consequently to grant all the service benefits to which the deceased was entitled to. The material on record shows that by order dated 05.07.2008, passed by the 3d respondent-Depot Manager, Zaheerabad Depot, P.Pandu was removed from services after conducting due enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 17.07.2008. However, he died on 01.08.2008. Thereafter, the petitioners 2 to 4 claim to have made a detailed representation requesting the 2nd respondent to allow them to prosecute the appeal and to set aside the order of removal. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which the fact that the appeal was preferred by the employee-P.Pandu against the order of removal has not been denied. However, it is stated that the petitioners/legal representatives never informed the 2nd respondent about the death of the appellant nor submitted their claim forms for settlement of the service benefits of the deceased. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material placed before this Court along with the writ petition shows that a detailed representation dated 16.10.2008 was made by the petitioners 2 to 4 and the same was received in the office of the 2nd respondent on 20.10.2008. In the circumstances, it is for the 2nd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners 2 to 4 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted. Accordingly, without going into the merits and without expressing any opinion as to the legality of the removal order dated 05.07.2008, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners 2 to 4 dated 16.10.2008 (which is filed as Annexure P.5 to this writ petition) to allow them to prosecute the appeal being the legal representatives of the deceased employee and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI,J. Date: 21.12.2009 KLP