IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 15133 of 2008 Between: B. Bhimaraju S/o. Appalaswamy R/o. D.No. 13-15-17, Old Aril Ova, Balajinagar, B.C.Colony, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Maddilapalem Depot, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam 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 will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent issue removal order dt. 21.04.2003, as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.08.2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHALLARI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Helper in Maddilapalem City Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was removed from service, through proceedings, dated 21.04.2003, issued by the second respondent on disciplinary grounds. The remedy of appeal and review availed by the petitioner were not successful. He made a representation, dated 06.08.2007, to the second respondent with a prayer to reinstate him into service or settle his terminal benefits. His grievance is that no action as been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The order of removal passed against the petitioner has been confirmed in the appeal and in the review. Therefore, the question of reinstatement of the petitioner does not arise. It is not known as to whether the amounts that are payable to the petitioner, on being removed, were extended to him at all. In case such claims have not been settled, immediate action needs to be taken thereon. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to settle the claim of the petitioner, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 15.07.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}