HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI. MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.945 OF 2011 15TH November, 2011. Between: SRI.Y.BHASKAR REDDY .. APPELLANT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (K&N), APSRTC, MSRD, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI. MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.945 OF 2011 O R D E R: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI Madan B.Lokur) The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 29-09-2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.17612 of 2010. 2. The appellant was engaged as a driver on casual basis with the Ongole Depot of APSRTC. He was involved in an accident on 18.06.2003 and removed from service on 12.08.2003. It is on record that the appellant filed an appeal and a review petition challenging the order of his removal from service. We are told by learned counsel for the appellant that the proceedings finally terminated some time in 2005. 3. The appellant preferred a writ petition for setting aside the removal order. The writ petition was filed some time in 2010. 4. The learned single Judge, after taking these facts into consideration, as well as the fact that the removal of the appellant was without holding any domestic enquiry, allowed the writ petition and set-aside the order of removal directing that the appellant may be engaged afresh on a casual basis. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before us and the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that his client should be given continuity of service. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon three orders passed by learned single Judges of this Court in W.P.No.27535 of 2010, W.P.No.5196 of 2010 and W.P.No.5998 of 2009. 7. We find that all these three writ petitions were preferred by drivers who were involved in accidents and the writ petitioners in those cases were on a contract basis, unlike the appellant who was on a casual basis. We also find that there is no delay or laches insofar as these writ petitioners are concerned, whereas in the present case there is an unexplained delay of five years in approaching this court for relief. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that his client was waiting for the criminal prosecution post the accident to conclude and the writ petition was filed after his acquitted by a judgment and order dated 17.12.2009. As such, there is no delay or laches in approaching this court for relief. 9. In our opinion, the mere pendency of a criminal prosecution does not explain the delay in filing the writ petition. The cause of action arose in favour of the appellant as far back as in 2005 and in the normal course the appellant ought to have approached this court soon thereafter. Instead, he waited for the criminal prosecution to terminate one way or the other. The learned single Judge exercised his discretion, taking all these factors into consideration in denying continuity of service to the appellant. 10. We are not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge, particularly when the appellant is now working with the organization. 11. Dismissed. ( MADAN B.LOKUR, CJ ) 15TH November, 2011. ( GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) Nagesh Babu HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI. MADAN B.LOKUR AND HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.945 OF 2011 O R D E R: (PER HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B.LOKUR) 15TH November, 2011. tnb