IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4108 of 2009 Between: V. David Raju S/o. Sundar Rao R/o. Peddapeta New Colony Achanta Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chief General Manager (HRD) Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Corporate Office at Visakhapatnam 2 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 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 appeal filed by petitioner on 24-7-2008 as illegal, and arbitrary by consequently directing the first respondent to forthwith dispose of the above appeal filed by petitioner immediately by duly taking into account the qualification of the petitioner and the service put in by him in the respondent company; 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 MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4108 of 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner worked as casual labourer in erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board. When the A.P. State Electricity Board has not considered him for appointment under 50% of backlog vacancies from among ex-casual labourers pursuant to B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.5.1997, he approached this court by filing W.P.No.27520 of 1997. The said writ petition came to be disposed of directing the respondents to consider his case for absorption/ appointment to a suitable post. The second respondent rejected the application of the petitioner for absorption/appointment. Petitioner questioned the rejection order by filing W.P.No.27526 of 1998. The said writ petition came to be disposed of directing the respondents to appoint him as L.D.C. Pursuant to the direction, the petitioner came to be appointed as Trainee L.D.C for a period of three months and thereafter he was absorbed in a regular vacancy. The respondents filed Writ Appeal No.1502 of 2000 questioning the order passed in W.P.No.27526 of 1998. The said writ appeal ended in dismissal as infructuous. Thereupon the respondents terminated the services of the petitioner basing on the judgment passed in S.L.P.No.6865 of 2000. The petitioner challenged the termination order by filing W.P.No.13240 of 2008. The said writ petition came to be disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the first respondent. He filed the appeal before the first respondent. Since appeal filed by him is not being taken up by the first respondent, he approached this court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri P.R.Balaram Reddy, learned standing counsel for Eastern Power Distribution Company takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. The factual aspect of the petitioner submitting the appeal before the first respondent is not controverted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. In that view of the mater, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No costs. __________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 02.03.2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}