IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5084 of 2008 Between: Gushidi Satyanarayana S/o. Late Appalaswamy C/o. T. Ananthalwar; H.No.44-24-21/A/3; Kanna Rao Street, Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Director (Vijayawada & Vizianagaram Zones) A.P.S.R.T.C. Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, Imlibun, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Vizianagaram Region, Vizianagaram. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vizianagaram Region, Parvatipuram Depot, Vizianagaram 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 order, direction or writ in the nature of writ of Mandamuss declaring the (i) action of 3rd respondent in passing Final Order No.M1/1(12)/90-PPM, dt. 18.01.1991, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of procedure contemplated under Regulation 12 of APSRTC (CC&A) Regulations 1967 (ii) action of 2nd respondent in rejecting the appeal by an order No.Peshi/19(70)/2003-RM-VZM, dt. 17.06.2004 as arbitrary and finally the (iii) action of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the review petition dt. 05.08.2004, as unjustified and contrary to the circular instruction dt. 17.04.1997, and pass such further other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.APPAIAH SARMA (SC for APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Conductor in the APSRTC, and after promotions up to the post of Traffic Inspector, Grade-II, he retired from service on 31.03.2007, on attaining the age of superannuation. While the petitioner was working as Conductor, charges were framed against him, and the appointing authority passed an order, dated 18.01.1991, imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Manager, the second respondent. The appeal was dismissed on 23.09.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner availed the remedy of review before the first respondent. His grievance is that the review has not been disposed of. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is already retired from service on 31.03.2007. The review filed by him before the first respondent in relation to imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is pending. The order that may be passed by the first respondent would have its own impact on the terminal benefits of the petitioner. Already one year has lapsed. Since the petitioner had retired from service, the matter cannot brook any further delay. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to pass an order on merits, in the review filed by the petitioner before him, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY , J Dated: 11.03.2008 Note: Issue CC within one week. (Bo) sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}