IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No 9230 of 2008 Between: T.Jeevan Rao E-66871/TTI Head Quarters Enforcement Squad Hyderabad S/o.Laxman Rao R/o.Hyd ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C rep. by its Managing Director Musheerabad Hyd 2 The Dy.Cheif Traffic Manager O/o. Regional Manager, Karimnagar Dist .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not fixing the pay of the petitioner even after completion of the punishment period as high handed and arbitrary action contrary to APSRTC Regulations and as such liable to be set aside the interest of justice with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to re- fix the pay of the petitioner by considering the representation field by the petitioner Dt 13-11-2007 forthwith in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.M.Subhan Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K.Madhava Reddy (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is appointed as a Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1997 and thereafter, promoted as T.T.I. He is due to retire from service on 30.06.2008. At different points of time, the petitioner was inflicted with punishments of deferment of annual increments with cumulative effect as well as reduction of the pay scale to the minimum basic. The effect thereof is that the petitioner was not extended any increment up to the stage of retirement. He claims to have made a representation, dated 13.11.2007, to the Vice Chairman & Managing Director of the Corporation, the first respondent herein, with a prayer to restore the increments and other benefits to him. His grievance is that no orders have been passed on the representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Even according to the representation made by the petitioner, four punishments were awarded to him in the years 1977, 1979, 1985 and 1987. All the orders were appealable and a further departmental remedy of review was available. It is not known as to whether the petitioner had availed such remedies. Once the said orders have become final, they cannot be reopened after the lapse of about three decades. The petitioner is not able to cite any provision under which the first respondent can exercise jurisdiction, that too, in stale matters of this nature. This Court does not find any basis to grant the relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}