IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N|§ WRIT PETITION NO: 34889 OF 2012 m THE Between: K.V.Narayana. E-403236, S/o Bojjappa, APSRTC, Nandikotkur Depot, R/o Nandikotkur, Kurnool Dist. Shramik, ...Petitioner AND APSRTC rep by its VideChairman &, Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool Region, Kurnool Dist. 3. The Depot Manager, APSRtc Nandikotkur, Kurnool Dist. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent i imposing punishment of deferment of Two years with cumulative effect without issuing any Show Cause Notice vide Proc. No. may one in the in 01/87(3)/92- NDK, dt. 12-7-1993, as illegal, unjust andyarbitrary, contrary to law and liable to be set aside in the,interestiof justice with . -'I’x ‘ "j • to pay arrears of differed increments as such a consequential direction I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 44353 OF 20121 Petition under Section 151 GPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix an early date of hearing of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following order: APHC010240072012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 34889/2012 Between: : . ; T K.V.Narayana, E-403236, S/o Bojjappa, ...PETITIONER AND The APSRTC Rep by its Vice Chairman and ...RESPONDENT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SMSUBHAN Counsel for the Respondeht(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAOtSG FOR APSRTC KKAC) . 1 • ■ . The Court made the following : \ • T WP.No.34889of2012 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 34889/2012 \ ORDER: 1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 12.07.1993, whereby the '.respondents imposed the punishment of withholding ef annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. 2. As seen from the proceedings, dated 12.07.1993, the petitioner was placed under, suspension pending enquiry. The punishment of deferment'of annual increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect was issued to the petitioner after conducting an enquiry. The writ petition is filed in the year 2012 challenging the proceedings of the year 1993. There has no explanation as to what prevented the petitioner from challenging such proceedings. 3. It is also not stated in the writ petition as to what prevented the petitioner from approaching the Labour Court for adjudicate his grievance if the petitioner was aggrieved by the proceedings dated 12.07.1993. 4. The petitioner is seeking a consequential direction to direct the respondents to disburse the deferred increments from 12.07.1993. During the pendency of the writ petition the WP.No.34889of2012 petitioner also attained the age of superannuation. The writ petition is hit by latches. 5. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner while working as a Shramik was involved in a murder case and absented from duty from 02.06.1992. The petitioner also failed to inform about his involvement and arrest in the criminal case and as such he was placed under suspension as pending of charge sheet. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was imposed the punishment after conducting the enquiry. The petitioner failed to inform to Superior Officer about his detention in the criminal case, that apart it is stated in the coynter the petitioner preferred the present writ petition after a period of 15 years. On account of delay and latches the writ petition is deserves to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents that this, Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly. The petitioner ought to have approach the Labour Court which is a competent authority to decide the issue on merits. The \ / 4 WP.No.34889of2012 inaction on part of the petitioner in approacNng at the appropriate time cannot be condoned. The attempt of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. In view of the delay and latches bn behalf of the petitioner, recording the same, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ^ \ V 7. 8. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to Sri S M Subhan, Advocate [OPUC] \ •* • • - 2. One CC to Sri Aravala RafriW Rao, (SC for APSRTC KKAC) [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies RAM (gsg) HIGH COURT DATED: 19/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.34889 of 2012 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS