IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.30875 of 2011 Between: U.V.Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner And APSRTC, represented by its VC & MD And others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.30875 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the salaries w.e.f. 15.07.2011 i.e. from the date of accident to till today, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the salaries along with the benefits w.e.f. 15.07.2011. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Driver in the respondents Corporation in the year 1999 and posted to 4th respondent’s depot and his services were regularized on 01.07.2009. Presently, on administrative grounds, his services are utilizing in the 3rd respondent’s depot. While he was driving the bus on 15.07.2011, due to mistake of the lorry driver, bus met with an accident with the lorry and in the said accident, the petitioner sustained serious injuries to his right leg below knee level. Therefore, he was admitted in the hospital from 15.07.2011 to 05.08.2011. Thereafter, he reported for duty before the 3rd respondent, but the 3rd respondent directed him to appear before the Corporation Dispensary at Vijayawada for medical examination and thereafter, granting sick continuously from the date of 05.08.2011 onwards. The claim of the petitioner is that though the accident is occurred during the course of employment, the respondents are not paying salaries from the date of accident onwards. Narrating the above situation, he made a representation dated 05.10.2011 to the 3rd respondent with a request for payment of salary from the date of accident. Even in spite of he made the said representation, the 3rd respondent has not paid salary to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation. The main grievance of the petitioner is that from the date of accident he was not being paid any salary even in spite of he made representation. In that view of the matter, it is appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the representation dated 05.10.2011 made by the petitioner for payment of salary and other benefits he is entitled to, in accordance with law, forthwith. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 24.11.2011 LSK