Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31923 (AP)

U.V. SRINIVASA RAO, GUNTUR DT. v. CHAIRMAN & M.D., APSRTC., HYD & 3 OT

WP/24059/2012 · 2025-01-24

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010468932012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 24059/2012 Between: U.v. Srinivasa Rao, Guntur Dt. ...PETITIONER AND Chairman M D Apsrtc Hyd 3 Ot and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following Order: It is submitted by Sri N. Srihari that a No Objection Certificate has been issued to the petitioner, as the learned counsel was appointed as the Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. However, the petitioner has taken no steps to engage a new counsel or represent the matter in person. 2. The petitioner has challenged the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering representation of the petitioner for the post of alternative employment vide his representation dated 29.06.2012. 2 3. This Court vide order dated 10.09.2012 directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was considered for the alternative job and was offered to join as a conductor. The petitioner was required to join at the Auto Nagar Depot within ten (10) days of the issuance of the proceedings dated 26.12.2012. However, it is submitted that the petitioner did not report to duty, and the respondents cancelled the orders of posting vide proceedings dated 21.01.2013 on account of the petitioner not reporting for work. 5. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is closed, leaving it open for the petitioner to take steps for any other alternative employment, if he is eligible for. The respondents would have to follow the statutory obligation under Section 47 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 24.01.2025 PNS