The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of Ihe Constitution of lndia 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 respondents in not considering petitroner representation dated 09-09-2023 for reinstatement into service as illegal, improper, arbitrary un constitutional and against the principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents to consider petitioner representation dated 09-09-2023 for reinstatement into service in any suitable post lN respondents TSRTC Corporation. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider petitioner representation dated 09-09-2023 for '. - .,'}: reinstatement into service in any suitable post in respondents TSRTC Corporation pending disposal of above writ petition lA NO:'l OF 2025 Petition under Section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit {iled in support of the petitron, the High ccurt may be pleased to permit the petiticner to contest the matter as party in pers.n in w.p. No. 9044 of 2024 pending on thr: frle of this Hon'ble High Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt CHTNTHA VIJENDER (pARTy tN PERSON) Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY, SC FOR TGSRTC - zoNE-1 The Court made the following: ORDER t i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAM'.VARAPT' RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 9O44 of2024 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: ".....to issue on appropriate wit, order or d.irection more particalarly one in the nature of Wnt of Mandamus declaing the action of tLe respondents in not consideing petitioner representation dated 09.09.2023 fo, reinstotement into seruice as illegal, improper arbitrary un constitutional and against the principles of natural justice, consequentLg direct th.e respondents to consider petitioner representation doted 09.09.2023 .fo, reinstotement into seruice in any suitable post in responden's TSRIC Corporation and poss such other order or orders . . . . "

2. Heard Mr. Chintha Vijender/Party-in-Person ald Sri N. Srushman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a driver on a daily wage basis in June 20 10. His services were regularized in the year 2013. On 2

10.08.2019. while the petitioner was re'urning from Nagapur to Sangareddy on his motorcycle, o I t.he way, in the outskirl s of Nagapur village, at about 2 30 p.m., the driver of irrl auto bearing No.TS- 15UC-34 18 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner antl clashed the petitioner's motorcycle. Due to which, t re petitioner suffered serious injuries and was first trtrated at the Government Hospital, Sangareddy, later, h: underwent lour mar or surgeries on his right leg at NI \4 S Hospital, Hyderabad

4. On a complaint, a case vvas registered a: Sangareddy Rural Police Station vide Crime No.243 of 2019 under Sections 33i' and 338 of the Indian Penal Codr'

5. On O5.O7.2022, the Superintendent and Chief Medical Oflicer declared the petitioner medic ally unfit for the post of Driver and also unlit for all otlrer alternate categories. As per G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 24.O2.2018, if the categories of Driver, Conductor, Mechalic, an,l .Artisan are -) medically unfit in the above categories, they are to be provided alternative appointment. 6 . Later, on 22.07 .2022, the authorities took a letter from the petitioner to permit him to retire as he is Medically Unfit. However, it is alleged that they suppressed the true facts and forced the petitioner to give that letter, and he signed the letter without knowing the contents as he is an illiterate. 7 . Learned counsel for the respondents had informed this Court that the total amount was paid to the petitioner, except an amount of Rs.1,24,779/- (Rupees One lakh, twenty four thousand, seven hundred and sevent5r nine only) and they are ready to pay the said amount B. The petitioner appearing as party-in-person, submitted that the respondents have partly implemented the order. However, due to various reasons, the Department has rejected the petitioner's claim of 4 Rs.1,24,779 /- and now the respondents are ready to pay the said amount 9 . In vjs,6r of the above submissions by t hr: respective parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respond<:nt authorities to pay arr amount of lls.I ,24,779 l- (Rupees One 1akh, twenty lour thousand, st vr:n hundred and seventy nine only) to the petitioner within a period of two (O2) u.eeks from the date of receipt of a copY of this order. Il any grievance is there, the pe,.itioner shall approach afresh. There shall be no order as to oosts. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if an1 , shail stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i'. $ecrroru oFFrcER To 'l Chintha 235947 502293 V1ender,. S/o Mallaiah Aged afo,yt j6. y"rr., rtlo n No 1_75. Esoji[er. prri]r -rviJ,i,jri,-ii,ifii,"n"aoy "orpution :C Ex_Driver E_ District

2. The Managrnq Director B1s flhgva1 Telangana Slate F oad Transport L:.orporatron Musheerabad, Hyderabad. +il:E,'tr'ri^Prr??Bitillir*$iff9i!1i,flif,"td#r,t*",jiry,,' 6HBT|J Ufiii,'3';.fn, Two CD Copier; J 4 5 6 7. PSK. BS M HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 ORDER WP.No.9O44 of 2024 (< e o o :\ thE S:4 '\. //:' 15 sEP 205 o t)c .9PAt r',',!-(1 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q. 'Ii\