IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO: 26614 of 2008 Between: N.V. Subba Rao S/o. Late Radhakrishna Murthy R/o. Guntur, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Corporation Banki , Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Mangaladevi Temple Road, Mangalore, Karnataka State 2 The General Manager (Administration) The Corporation Bank, Mangaladevi Temple Road, Mangalore, Karnataka State. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance for the period from 4-8- 1988 to 6-2-1997 besides declaring their action as illegal and ultra vires to the provisions of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance for the period from 4.08.1988 to 6.02.1997. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner submits that he has been appointed as a Clerk in the first respondent-Bank on 6.06.1977 at Staff Training College, Mangalore. Subsequently, on 10.12.1983 he has been promoted as an Officer and transferred to Vijayawada Main Branch and from there, to Guntur Regional Office on 5.2.1985. While he was working at Guntur, the Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary Authority), Human Resources Department, Mangaladevi Temple Road, Mangalore has passed orders vide proceedings dated 3.07.1985, keeping him under suspension. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the respondents dated 28.07.1988, which was confirmed in appeal vide order dated 2.01.1989 the petitioner preferred W.P.No.2644 of 1989 before this Court, and this Court by order dated 30.12.1991 allowed the writ petition setting aside the disciplinary action and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration with a direction to pass appropriate order in respect of Charge No.1. Thereafter, he was reinstated into service by proceedings dated 31.09.1997 at the basic pay corresponding to the basic pay, which he was drawing just before his promotion. It was also observed that pay and allowances for the period of suspension is restricted to the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of suspension. Aggrieved by the same, he again approached this Court and the matter went up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court by order dated 30.11.2006 held that once the order of dismissal is set aside and the appellant is reverted to the post of clerk, he will be entitled to the service benefits including pension and gratuity available to the said post. The penultimate para of the said judgment reads as under. “We therefore, direct the respondent-Bank to treat the suspension period from 3.07.1985 to 6.02.1997 for reckoning pension and gratuity only. The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no orders as to costs.” The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was paid subsistence allowance from 4.08.1988 to 6.02.1997 only and in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court, he is entitled for subsistence allowance for the period from 4.8.1998 to 6.02.1997 also, but he was not paid the same. Therefore, he made several representations to the authorities to pay subsistence allowance, but in vain. Hence this writ petition. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Bank submitted that since the petitioner has already submitted representations and the same are pending with the respondents, instead of this Court going into the merits of the case, the respondents may be directed to consider the representations of the petitioner, for which course of action the petitioner also agreed. In the circumstances, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to dispose of the representation, dated 28.06.2008 submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________ (N.V.RAMANA, J.) 5th December, 2008 Js/Msv