IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13240 of 2008 Between: V. David Raju, S/o. Sundar Rao, R/o. Peddapeta New Colony, Achanta Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Visakhapatnam Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 2 Chief General Manager (HRD), Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Corporate Office at Visakhapatnam. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Eluru. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the first respondent in not disposing of the representation dt. 21-3-2007 filed by petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary, by consequently directing the first respondent to consider the above representation of Petitioner, on sympathetic grounds, having regard to the qualification of petitioner and the service put in by him in the respondent Corporation; Award Costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13240 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk, by the 3rd respondent on 06.03.2000, on the strength of a direction issued by this Court in a writ petition. He was issued a show cause memo, dated 26.02.2004, requiring to explain as to why his appointment shall not be terminated, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.6568 of 2000. Ultimately, through memo, dated 02.09.2004, the 3rd respondent terminated the services of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 21.03.2007, to the 1st respondent with a prayer to re- consider his case for continuance in service. His grievance is that the representation has not been disposed of as yet. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. An order of termination was passed by the appointing authority against the petitioner. Even if he feels aggrieved by it, he has to avail the remedy of departmental appeal or approach the Labour Court, by raising an Industrial Dispute. The representation said to have been made by the petitioner is not referable to any provision of law. Therefore, this Court cannot require the 1st respondent to entertain the representation and to pass orders thereon. The petitioner can avail the remedies, in accordance with law. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies, against the order, dated 02.09.2004, passed by the 3rd respondent, as are provided for in law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 26.06.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13240 of 2008 Date: 26.06.2008 JSU