APHC010383452008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: Between: S.Chinna Rao, Vizianagaram Dist The Executive Engineer Vizianagaram Dist Another and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following Heard Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition absorb the petitioner as a driver in the office of the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Parvatipuram, Vizianagaram District. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 4621/2008 hinna Rao, Vizianagaram Dist ...PETITIONER AND The Executive Engineer Vizianagaram Dist Another and ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Court made the following Order: Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the The present writ petition is filed directing the respondents herein to absorb the petitioner as a driver in the office of the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Parvatipuram, Vizianagaram District. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) Sri A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the filed directing the respondents herein to absorb the petitioner as a driver in the office of the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., 2 3. The case of the petitioner is that, he belongs to the Scheduled Caste, hailing from a poor family, and is eking out his livelihood by doing driving works in and around the agency area. In this regard, the 1st respondent engaged, the petitioner as a temporary driver for the Jeep bearing No. AND 2821 since August 1997 onwards. The petitioner further stated that, he worked for four (4) years with short breaks, for the said periods, he was also paid a salary by the respondent authorities. It is also contended by the petitioner that, his services were terminated orally by the respondents in the year 2001. However, the petitioner is used to go to the respondent offices and he has been extending his temporary services as a driver and other incidental works till today also. 3. It is the specific version of that, he preferred a representation dated 16.03.2001 to the 2nd respondent, stating the factual aspects as well as to consider his case sympathetically, by taking into consideration of his earlier services as a Jeep Driver. The above said representation dated 16.03.2001 was placed before this Hon’ble Court. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, by the learned counsel, the 1st respondent, through the R.C.No. 16/2001 A-3, dated 11.04.2001, by taking note of the petitioner’s earlier services, requested the Deputy Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Sub- Division, Parvathipuram, to utilize the petitioner’s services as a Jeep Driver, until further orders. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, Sri U. Kanaka Raju, is present and stated that, the petitioner’s services presently 3 not required. However, the learned Government Pleader fairly accepted that, till today, the representation dated 16.03.2001 has not been redressed and it is still pending with the respondent authorities. 5. At that juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his prayer and sought for consideration of his representation on merits. For which, learned Government Pleader fairly accepted. Thus, by taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances in the lis, as the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste hails from a rural, rustic background, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 16.03.2001 in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this order, and also communicate, the said orders to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date:28.02.2025 PNS