THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9086 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in not taking the petitioner into duty in compliance to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide Proc.No:PA/20(01)/2009- RM:EG, Dt 19-2-2008, which was passed by setting aside the termination order in Proc.No:P1/1(93)/07-GKRM-dt:25.10.2007, as high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, contrary to the circular instructions and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to pay the wages by extending all the benefits from the date of removal to till date.” Petitioner was appointed as a driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) on contract basis in the month of March, 2006 and posted at Gokavaram Depot, East Godavari District. On the ground that he was absent to duty unauthorisedly, the third respondent – Depot Manager, Gokavaram, East Godavari, terminated his services vide order, dated 25.10.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a review petition before the second respondent - Regional Manager, East Godavari. Thereupon, the second respondent vide his proceedings, dated 19.02.2008, ordered to reengage the services of the petitioner as a contract driver subject to the following conditions: 01. He shall be found medically FIT for A1 category. 02. He shall pay Security deposit afresh. 03. He shall enter into fresh agreement as per rules in force. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of such direction issued by the second respondent, he was not reengaged and repeated representations are of no avail. He placed on record a copy of the representation, dated 18.12.2009 submitted to the second respondent. A perusal of the said representation shows that though he was approaching the Divisional Manager’s Office for reengagement of his services in terms of the directions issued by the second respondent vide proceedings, dated 19.02.2008, his request was not being considered on the ground that his file was not transmitted from the Office of the second respondent. In spite of issuance of directions by the second respondent as early as on 19.02.2008, the reason for not taking up the petitioner into service is not known. However, whether the petitioner has complied with the conditions or not and whether he approached the authorities or not, are the matters to be examined by the competent authority. In view of representation, dated 18.12.2009 submitted to the second respondent by the petitioner is pending consideration, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to consider the said representation, examine the issue as to why he was not reengaged as per proceedings, dated 19.02.2008 and pass appropriate orders as early as possible. However, the petitioner shall place a copy of the proceedings, dated 19.02.2008 along with a copy of this order before the second respondent, within a period of three (3) weeks from today. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th APRIL, 2010. kvni