IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24361 of 2009 Between: G.V.Vijayakumar ..... PETITIONER AND A.P.S.R.T.C Rep.by its VC & MD Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24361 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioner who was working as Junior Assistant in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was removed from the service on the allegations of corrupt practices. However, on a review petition filed by him, the respondent No.2 by order dated 03.01.2006 while directing reinstatement ordered that the intervening period i.e. from the date of removal from service to the date he reports for duty shall be treated as not on duty for the purpose of leave, wages and increments and that the increment shall be deferred for a period of two years. The said order date 03.01.2006 is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the impugned order, the petitioner has been reinstated and he has been working as on today. However, the petitioner claims that the allegations on the basis of which the order of termination was passed were held to be unfounded by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Piler by Judgment and decree in O.S.No.22 of 2002 dated 13.08.2009 and therefore, the order of termination itself is illegal and consequently the impugned order dated 03.01.2006 denying the continuity of service and directing deferment of increment for two years is also liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is based upon a subsequent event, by virtue of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.22 of 2002. So, the petitioner should have approached the Corporation, by making an appropriate representation for redressal of his grievance and if any adverse order is passed, it is always open to him to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law. Hence, the interference by this court at this stage is unwarranted. Accordingly, granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents for redressal of his grievance, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 11.11.2009 IVD