HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27037 OF 2010 Between: T.Yebulu …. Petitioner and The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. By its Managing Director and two others …. Respondents This court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27037 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as a driver on contract basis by A.P.S.R.T.C. on 01.03.2006. However, he was removed from service by the Depot Manager, Tanuku-3rd respondent through order, dated 30.03.2007 on the ground of unauthorized absentees. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed review before the Regional Manger-2nd respondent. Through his order, dated 21.09.2007, the 2nd respondent directed that the petitioner be engaged as a driver on contract basis, afresh, provided he reports to duty within one week and a default class was also added. Petitioner reported duty only in April, 2010. When he was not taken in service, he made a representation to the 2nd respondent. Through proceedings, dated 24.04.2010, the 2nd respondent informed him that he cannot be permitted to join duty, since he failed to report in pursuance of the order dated 21.09.2007. The same is challenged in the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Stranding Counsel for the respondents. The very allegation on which the petitioner was removed from service was that he was unauthorisedly absent from duties. The 2nd respondent has shown compassion and directed fresh engagement of the petitioner as a driver duly setting aside the order of removal. The petitioner ought to have availed the benefit there under. Because the petitioner was accused of being unauthorisedly absent, the 2nd respondent imposed a condition that he must join to duty within one week. That did not have any impact upon the petitioner. After expiry of about three years, the petitioner proposed to join duty. Naturally, the 2nd respondent refused to show any indulgence. This court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It is however directed that in case the respondents take steps to engage drivers on contract basis in future, they shall consider the case of the petitioner also. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 8th November 2010 lmv