IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 6672 OF 2012 Between: A. Nagappa, S/o Gangappa, 48 years, Conductor, E.409577, Hindupur depot SC Colony, Nallamada Post & Mandal, Anantapur District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur Region, Anantapur 3. The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Hindupur Depot, Anantapur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not considering the mercy petition of the petitioner for joining the duty on reinstatement duly condoning the delay in attending the medical examination is unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to join duty on reinstatement as per the reinstatement proceedings No.PA/675(125)/05-RM"A" dated 16.01.2006 of the 2nd Respondent, in the interest of justice and fair play. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 8465 OF 2012) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an interim direction to the respondents to consider the mercy petition dated 10.12.2011 of the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A G SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: ORDER ,N the high court of ANDHRA PRADESH TUSH 'N THE Ml ^jaNIARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TOSJsANSVwEN°TYRVr'''' PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N ^^^o.^oFTiTiON uoymMZm [3457] m THE ...petitioner ...RESPONDENT(S) Between; A. Nagappa, AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others "°rrGSmAN“NA^^ "“^AtAV^LrRAMrRASlSC for APSRTC KKAC) 2. court made the following Order: challenging the inaction on The the part of the petition of the petitioner, of the The petitioner is in not considering the mercy respondent$ which would enable the petitioner to join duty in pursuance The petitioner was dated 09.08.2005. of reinstatement order appointed as a conductor m and ticket irregularity and was was involved in a imposed the punishment The appeal preferred by the in 1993. -The petitioner of cash 01.03.2005 rejected by the appellate authority on removal from service on 28.05.2005. petitioner was 2 The petitioner preferred a revision before revisional authority 2. and the revisional authority, after considering the issue emphatically, passed orders dated 09.08.2005, directing the reinstatement of the petitioner, subject to the petitioner appearing for a medical examination to declare him fit for duty. The petitioner could not attend the medical examination on account of his family problems. After the lapse of one year, in May 2007, the petitioner requested the respondents to send him for the medical examination, but the request was not considered. The petitioner submitted an application dated 10.12.2011 as a mercy petition. which has not been considered by the respondents and the same is challenging in the present writ petition. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents submits 3. that the revisional authority took a humanitarian approach and directed reinstatement. However, the petitioner was required to report to the Depot Manager, Hindupur, within seven days and the proceedings of the Regional Manager were very clear with regard to It Is the implications of not reporting to the Depot Manager. submitted that the proceedings would automatically be cancelled without any further action upon the failure of the petitioner to report to the Depot Manager. In the present case, the petitioner 3 voluntarily did not report for duty for several years, citing family problems. Insofar as the plea of the petitioner with regard to disposal of the mercy petition is concerned, the learned Standing counsel submits that this cannot be challenged as a matter of fundamental 4. right when the respondents have passed orders in accordance with The petitioner cannot, after the regulations of the corporation, several years of reinstatement, claim that his case for reinstatement should be reconsidered. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition. 5. Recording the same, the writ petition is dismissed. There 6. shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous |:^titions, if any, shall Stand closed. Sd/- A. VENUGOPALA RAO AS>SISTANT REGISTRAR tr ih SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to Sri A G Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Aravala Rama Rao (SC for APSRTC KKAC) Advocate [UHLIUJ 3. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:08/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.6672 of 2012 I 05 MAR OT ^ . Curreni oecuon DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS