IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2514 of 2009 Between: M. Jagadishwaraiah, Incharge Manager, Dowlatabad Branch, Dist Cooperative Central Bank Ltd.Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The General Manager, Dist Cooperative Central Bank Ltd.Medak District. 2 The President, Dist Cooperative Central Bank Ltd.Medak 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 may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action fo the respondent bank in not considering my representation 25-3-2008, which are made by me for consideration of amy seniority is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violative aof article 14, 16 & 21 of constitution of India in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKAT REDDY DONTHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by M.Jagadishwaraiah assailing the action of the respondents in not considering his representation dated 25.03.2008. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 10.06.1967 in the vacancy caused due to deputation of one of the employee of the respondents Bank at Sangareddy. Consequent on the person, who is on deputation, coming back to the respondents Bank, the petitioner’s services came to be terminated. The petitioner was again appointed in the respondents Bank and came to be retrenched on 06.09.1970. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.884 Labour Emp. & TE (Labour-I) Department, dated 04.08.1977 referred the matter to the Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Labour Court, entertained the matter as I.D.No.108 of 1974. The Labour Court, by award dated 07.07.1977 directed the respondents bank to re- employ the petitioner as supervisor, and in case if he is not qualified to hold the post as per the existing rules, to send him for training and till such time to provide him with alternative post of same cadre. Pursuant to the Award, the petitioner came to be appointed as Supervisor on 09.03.1978. He submitted a representation to the respondents Bank claiming backwages and also seniority. When the respondents Bank did not consider his representation, he filed W.P.No.12351 of 1992. The said writ petition ended in dismissal on the ground of laches. He unsuccessfully challenged the said order by filing W.A.No.1718 of 1995. He submitted another representation dated 21.03.2007 to the respondents Bank claiming for backwages. The respondents Bank refused to consider his representation by issuing proceedings dated 24.07.2007. The petitioner again submitted another representation dated 25.03.2008 seeking the selfsame relief. He approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents Bank to consider his representation dated 25.03.2008. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted representation dated 25.03.2008 and since the respondents are not acting upon the petitioner’s representation, necessary direction is required to be given to the respondents to consider the same. 5. As seen from the records, the petitioner sought for similar relief in W.P.No.12351 of 1992. The relief came to be rejected on the ground of laches. The petitioner carried the matter unsuccessfully in W.A.No.1718 of 1995. The order dated 22.01.1996 passed in W.A.No.1718 of 1995 reads as hereunder: “Heard learned counsel for the appellant. For grievances which arise from an award given about fourteen yeas ago, the appellant has chosen to raise a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after a lapse of fourteen years of time. Learned single Judge has declined to enter into the controversy for the reason of inordinate delay. We find no reason to differ with the said view. The appeal for the said reason is dismissed.” 6. Since the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition has been negatived in the earlier round of litigation, no direction can be given to the respondents Bank to consider the selfsame relief. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:11th February, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}