THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 19901 of 2010 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been preferred by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kadapa, questioning the validity of the Award dated 14.06.2007 passed in I.D. No. 142 of 2003 initiated by the 1st respondent – workman on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court held the action of the petitioner Regional Manager in imposing the punishment of offering fresh appointment as Conductor as not justified. Consequently, the 1st respondent workman was declared to be entitled for continuity in service, but without attendant benefits and back wages for the period from the date of removal from service i.e. 03.05.2000 till the date of the Award. This Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed right at the stage of admission, for the following reasons: 1) No reasons worth consideration are set out as to why the Regional Manager, Kadapa has taken more than three years time to approach this Court by instituting this Writ Petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, a stray sentence which reads as under is mentioned “ Therefore, it is just and necessary that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of ------- days that occurred in filing the present Writ Petition”. The incomplete statement made in the affidavit only reflects the lack of anxiety and seriousness on the part of the writ petitioner as well as the Law Officer, who has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition. Writ Petitions are not supposed to be filed with less than a casual approach. It is elementary that every claim must be asserted and prosecuted with reasonable expedition. Merely because there is no prescribed period of limitation for entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the process of this Court cannot be sought to be initiated after lapse of three years. Therefore, I see no justification to entertain this Writ Petition at all. 2) Further, on merits, there is no provision under the APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations prescribing offering fresh appointment as one of the punishments. When it is not a listed punishment, the writ petitioner – Regional Manager could not have offered the same in substitution to the punishment of removal handed down to the 1st respondent – workman by the Depot Manager, Badwel. The Regional Manager was exercising the powers of revisional authority. Therefore, he is bound to confine himself to the Regulations covering the field. A punishment, which is not contemplated or provided for in the Regulations, could not have been imposed against the 1st respondent – workman. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any valid or justifiable reason to admit this Writ Petition at this distant point of time and hence, it is dismissed, but however, without costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 13th August 2010 ksld