THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.29674 OF 2011 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the 1st respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Rural Irrigation Corporation Ltd., on 1.9.1983 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 22.9.2010. As the petitioner was not paid the gratuity amount of Rs.4,02,102-70, which he is entitled to as per bye-law no.45, he made representations and when the same were not considered, approached this court in W.P.No.24998 of 2011 and by order dated 7.9.2011 this court directed the 1st respondent therein i.e., the Managing Director, to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the order of this court dated 7.9.2011, the respondent passed the Memo No.E2/RIC/278/2011/2147 dated 19.10.2011 showing the paucity of funds as the reason for non-payment. The relevant portion is extracted as under: “Since 2008 the retirement beneﬁts are not settled to the retired employees in the Corporation. Therefore, along with the petitioner, there are (20) employees whose retirement beneﬁts are to be paid. Due to ﬁnancial crises, the Corporation has settled gratuity amount only in respect of deceased employees to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/-. And still there is pending payment of gratuity to the deceased employees. Keeping in view of the above circumstances, eﬀorts are being made to get more works and earn more margin so that the gratuity can be paid to the employees including petitioner in order of priority as and when ﬁnancial position is improved.” 3. Challenging the above memo dated 19.10.2011, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reason shown by the Corporation is unsustainable, since it will not be known when the ﬁnancial position of the Corporation will improve and the petitioner retired from in the year 2010 and he is legally entitled to the amount. He further submitted that similarly placed retired employees whose gratuity amount was not paid, approached this court and this court directed the respondent – Corporation to pay the gratuity amount and when the said orders were not complied with, the petitioners therein, ﬁled contempt case and the Standing Counsel for the Corporation sought time for implementation of the orders of this court. Therefore, as the claim of the petitioner may also likely to be considered by the respondent - Corporation, he has instructions from his client, to presently withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to file fresh writ petition, if the claim is not settled. 5. In view of the above representation, permission is granted to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty as sought for. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to ﬁle fresh writ petition, as per the requirement. No costs. AVS ---------------------------- 05—12—2011