IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 26979 of 2008 Between: Yepuri Satyanarayana S/o.China Swamy R/o.5-92/5/A,Alamuru, East Godavari district ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh STate Road Transport Corporation rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan,Musheerabad Hyderabad 2 The COS Zonal Stores,APSRTC,Rajahmundry East Godavari District 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC,Ramachandrapuram Depot East Godavari District 4 The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Rajahmundry, East Godavari 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider petitioners representations dated 26.5.2008 and 4.9.2008 seeking allowance and arrears as per the APSRTC Employees (Classification Control and Appeal Regulations),1967. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent A.P.State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1978 and thereafter he was promoted as Senior Assistant and subsequently promoted as Deputy Superintendent (Material). In this writ petition, he is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representations dated 26.5.2008 and 4.9.2008 seeking allowance and arrears as per the APSRTC Employees (Classification Control and Appeal Regulations),1967. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that since the representations of the petitioner are still pending consideration with the respondents, instead of this Court going into the merits of the matter, the respondents may be directed to consider and dispose of the said representations, for which course of action, the learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations of the petitioner dated 26.5.2008 and 4.9.2008 as expeditiously as possible. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.11.12.2008 msv