IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICTURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.29419 of 2011 Between: E.Chakrapani and others … Petitioners and A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. By its Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.29419 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in allotting TIM duties to the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being contrary to the terms of agreement reached between the Employees’ Unions and the respondents Corporation and consequently interdict the 2nd respondent from allotting TIM duties to the petitioners contrary to the said terms of the agreement thereby allotting the regular duties to the petitioners as per the rules in vogue. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are working as Drivers in the Corporation and performing the specialized duties such as TIM (Ticket Issuing Machine) Service, Ghat Service, Express Service etc. As per the agreement reached between the Employees’ Unions and the Corporation, the above referred services have to be allotted to the first 87 employees in the seniority list. As per the seniority an employee can opt between TIM Service, Ghat Service and Express Service. Without allotting the said duties to the seniors, the respondents’ authorities are allotting the said specialized duties to the juniors, who are untrained in the said specialized duties. Therefore, they are subjected for inconvenience. Explaining the same, the petitioners made a representation to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent declined even to receive the same. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the said grievances. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation would submit that the grievance of the petitioners can be ventilated by way of a representation to the appropriate authorities i.e. 2nd respondent, in which case, the 2nd respondent will consider the same. Therefore, she submitted that it is not a case where this Court necessarily has to exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the Corporation authorities, without imparting any training to perform the specialized duties, are allotting the said specialized duties to the petitioners, which necessarily has to be allotted to the seniors according to the agreement entered into between the Unions and the Management. If that is the case, the petitioners are given liberty to make a representation to the 2nd respondent, within two weeks from today, and on receipt of such representation, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within two weeks, from the date of receipt of such representation. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 08.11.2011 Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. B/o. LSK