IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 9808 of 2009 Between: B.Yellaiah S/o.Veeraswamy, R/o.Warangal, Warangal District ... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, rep.by its Managing Director, Musheerabad,Hyderabad-20 2 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, rep.by its Depot Manager, Warangal-I Depot, Warangal District ... RESPONDENTS 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 call for the records from the 2nd respondent and issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the Suspension order issued by 2nd respondent in proceedings No.02/187(76)/2009-WL-1 dated 28.4.2009 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory, and act of victimization and unfair labour practice and violative of Articles, 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9808 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted questioning the correctness and validity of an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transportation Corporation, placing the writ petitioner under suspension on the ground that while he was performing his duties as a driver he was prima facie responsible for causing an accident and then entering into an unauthorized compromise with the offending vehicle’s driver. Though several contentions have been canvassed in the writ petition, questioning the very veracity of these allegations leveled against the writ petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that upon reconsideration of the entire matter in its proper perspective, orders have been passed on 29.06.2009, lifting the orders of suspension and reinstating the petitioner back to his duty. Thus, this Court has been saved of the bother to examine the correctness or otherwise of various contentions canvassed in the writ petition. When once an employee gets reinstated into service, it is for him to work out his remedies with regard to any of the subsisting grievances against the Management. In view of the above, resulting in reinstatement of the writ petitioner back to service, the cause in this writ petition does not survive. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________________ (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 30th June 2009 kh