IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26862 of 2008 Between: M. Manohar Rao S/o. Subba Rao R/o. D.No. 12/125/A, Thyagaraj Street Madanapalle , Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Road Transport Corporation Rep.by its Regional Manager, Chittoor Region, Tirupathi. 2 A.P. Road Transport Corporation Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Chittoor District. 3 The A.P. Road Transport Corporation Rep. by its Depot Manager, Madanapalle -I, Madanapalle , Chittoor 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings of the 1st respondent vide No. PA/20(17)/2007-RM (T) dt. 11-4-2007 Rejecting to issue fresh posting order to the petitioner as illegal, and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to issue fresh posting orders pursuant to the orders of the 2nd respondent No. PA/19(18)/2006-DVM(C) dt. 26-4-2006 for enabling the petitioner to join duty in the interest of justice and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI, Standing Counsel The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26862 of 2008 Order: Although interlocutory application is listed for hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposed of. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 11.4.2007 of the Regional Manager of respondent No.1- Corporation, whereby, he declined to extend time to the petitioner for reporting to duty in pursuance of order dated 26.4.2006 passed by the Divisional Manager. Heard Sri R. Radha Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was Conductor of respondent No.1-Corporation. Following the departmental enquiry, he was removed from service by the Depot Manager, Madanpalle Depot-I, Madanpalle, by order dated 18.1.2006. The said order was questioned in appeal by the petitioner before the Divisional Manager, Chittoor. The said appeal was allowed by the appellate authority, by his order dated 26.4.2006, subject to certain conditions, which read thus: “1. His annual increment shall be deferred for a period of 18 months without cumulative effect. 2. He has to pay fresh security deposit as per the rules in force and he must be in possession of valid conductor licence by the time of reporting at new station. 3. The period from the date of removal to the date of reporting at new station shall be treated as ‘NOT ON DUTY’ for all the purposes. 4. He has to pay amounts, if withdrawn towards settlement dues at the time of reinstatement.” The appellate authority further directed the petitioner to report to the Regional Manger for posting orders. Following the said order, the Regional Manager, Tirupathi, issued order dated 6.5.2006, permitting the petitioner to report to the Depot Manager, Kuppam, within seven days from the date of receipt of the said order. It is further stated therein that if the petitioner fails to report to duty within the stipulated time, the said order shall be deemed to have been cancelled. It is the misfortune of the petitioner that he did not report to duty within the stipulated time. However, he approached the Regional Manager by representation dated 21.2.2007, to extend the time granted by him for reporting to duty. In the said representation, he stated that because of his being out of service, he went into depression and his depression got revived on account of the death of his mother on 24.8.2006. The Regional Manager, by order dated 11.4.2007, declined to extend time to the petitioner to report to duty. This order is questioned in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit by the Law Officer of respondent No.1- Corporation, it is inter alia submitted that the petitioner failed to adhere to the time stipulated by the Regional Manager for reporting to duty and; that having failed to utilize the opportunity, he is not entitled to seek relief from this Court. In my considered view, the respondents have not properly taken into consideration the plight of the petitioner. The Regional Manager has not given a finding that the reasons put forth by the petitioner for not reporting to duty within the time stipulated by him were false. A perusal of the reasons given by the petitioner suggests that he was in deep family problems on account of his mental condition and also due to the death of his mother. Under these circumstances, the respondents ought to have extended time to the petitioner for reporting to duty in pursuance of the appellate order passed by the Divisional Manager, which admittedly has become final. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to permit the petitioner to join duty, if the latter reports to duty within a period of four weeks from today. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 2nd April, 2009 pnb