IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.18603 of 2011 Between: A.Qayyum … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Medak Region, at Sangareddy at Medak and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.18603 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not fixing the pay of the petitioner by adding the four increments which were to be added in pursuance of the order dated 11.03.2009 of the 1st respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner by adding four increments as on 01.07.2010 and to pay the fixation arrears till the date of his retirement and to pay the retirement benefits on the enhanced basic pay. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the respondents’ Corporation on 01.09.1989. While performing his duties on 04.12.2006 on vehicle bearing No.AP 10 Z 3695 on route Nizamsagar to Narayanakhed the bus met with an accident and consequent to the said accident, the petitioner was issued charge sheet dated 30.12.2006 alleging that his conduct is in violation of Regulation 28 (ix-a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. The petitioner, while denying the allegations leveled against him, submitted his explanation. After due enquiry into the matte, the enquiry officer made the petitioner guilty of the charges and submitted his report on 18.04.2007. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 17.05.2007 was issued for which, the petitioner gave his explanation on 28.05.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner was terminated from service vide proceedings dated 01.06.2007 of the 3rd respondent, Depot Manager. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, on 15.06.2007 and the 2nd respondent was pleased to allow the appeal vide his order dated 05.10.2007 whereunder, reinstated the petitioner into service, but with imposition of punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect and the period of removal from service to the date of reporting to the duty was treated as not on duty for all purposes and consequently, the petitioner was posted at Zaheerabad depot. Thereafter, assailing the said modified order, the petitioner filed a review petition before the 1st respondent, Regional Manager, on 30.11.2007. As the reviewing authority did not pass any orders, the petitioner filed W.P. No.20702 of 2010 and this Court while disposed of the said writ petition directed the reviewing authority to pass appropriate orders on the review petition stated to have been filed by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction, the reviewing authority passed on order dated 11.03.2009 wherein the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent was reviewed i.e. the cumulative punishment was modified as non cumulative effect. It is submitted that in view of the order dated 11.03.2009, the effect of punishment will be only for two years from the date of punishment order i.e. order dated 05.10.2007 of the 2nd respondent and the punishment will be end on 04.10.2009. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for those four increments with effect from 01.07.2009 i.e. the fixation date of increment. But for the reasons best known to the authorities, four increments have not been added to the petitioner’s pay and he attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2010. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the eventual order dated 11.03.2009 passed by the reviewing authority, the petitioner is entitled to four increments and if those increments would be added, his pay would have been increased and he would have got more retiremental benefits based upon the basic pay. Further, the petitioner also entitled to arrears of benefits. Therefore, questioning inaction on the part of the respondents in doing so, the petitioner approached this Court. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel would submit that the petitioner, before approaching this Court, had not made any representation to the respondents concerned for considering his request and therefore, the respondents had no occasion to consider the grievance of the petitioner put forth before this Court. He further submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that he made representation to the authorities and they are not passing any orders. If the petitioner is given liberty to make any representation in respect of the aforesaid grievance, the respondents may be directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation to be made by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, there is no dispute in respect of the averments noted hereinabove. The learned counsel on either side fairly brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner did not make any representation before the authorities concerned in respect of his grievance put forth before this Court. Therefore, I am of the view that without going into the merits and demerits of the case, this writ petition can be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents authorities bringing all his grievance. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents bringing all his grievance, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within two months, from the date of receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 16.12.2011 LSK