Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22331 (AP)

M.N. Raju, E-750919, v. The APSRTC,

WP/23216/2007 · 2025-02-21

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010314692007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 23216/2007 Between: M. N. Raju ...PETITIONER AND The APSRTC and 2 others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: None Counsel for the Respondents: 1. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tarlada (SC for APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The writ petitioner instituted the instant Writ Petition seeking the following relief: “ ….. to issue a Writ of "Mandamus" declaring the action of the Respondents herein not considering the case of the petitioner for alternate employment in pursuance of the declaration made by the Medical Board and directing to claim settlement dues vide Proc.No.02/255(1)/06-WTR, Dt.9-5-2007 and not providing alternative post, as illegal, contrary to the provisions of Sec. 47 of the persons with disabilities (Equal opportunities protection of rights and full participation) Act 1995, violative of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and as such liable to be set aside with a consequential direction to provide alternate employment to the petitioner and to pay the salaries for the out of employment period forthwith in the interest of Justice and pass….” 2. On 02.11.2007, this Court, in W.P.M.P.No.30251 of 2007, pleased to grant interim direction whereby directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for providing alternative employment in any suitable post as per the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, within a period of four (4) weeks. 3. Therefore, the case was adjourned from time to time and lastly listed on 31.01.2025 and, on the said date, there is no representation for the petitioner. 4. Today, when the matter is listed for hearing, Mr. Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, on instructions, submitted that, consequent to the interim order, dated 02.11.2007, passed in W.P.M.P.No.30251 of 2007, the respondent authorities provided an alternative employment to the petitioner as Shramik in X2 category and the petitioner was posted at Waltair Depot vide office order, dated 13.03.2008. 5. Thus, it seems that presently the petitioner is working as Mechanic in Waltair Depot of the respondent Corporation, as per the latest instructions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. 6. In view of the above submission made by learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation coupled with the fact that there is no representation from the side of the petitioner on 31.01.2025 as well as today despite the matter being listed under the caption, ‘for dismissal’, this Writ Petition is closed as no further orders are necessary. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 21.02.2025 kbs 19 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.23216 of 2007 Date: 21.02.2025 kbs