IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6859 of 2009 Between: S.Yesupadam, S/o. K.Sundar Raj, UMTS-Telugu Medium High School, AROGYAVARAM, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Government of A.P., Edn. (SE.PS.II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Government of A.P., Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 The District Educational Officer, chittoor., 4 The Deputy Educational Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 5 The Correspondent, UMTS, HIgh school, Arogyavaram, Chittoor District, A.P., .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.V.S.KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4:AGP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in reconsidering the petitioner’s claim for service benefits payable to him, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri T.V.S.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education. The petitioner entered service of respondent No.5 institution on 15.02.1983 as Drawing Master. His services were regularized in the said post vide G.O.Ms.No.178, dated 23.07.1990. His service benefits were not given from 15.02.1983 and aided salary was not paid from 01.11.1989. He retired from service on 31.08.2004. His representation for the above-mentioned benefits was rejected by respondent No.1 vide its order, dated 24.10.2006. He made another representation on 17.07.2007. Respondent No.1 vide Memo No.16591/SE PS.II.2/2007.1, dated 26.10.2007 called for a report from respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though nearly 1½ years elapsed from the date of calling for the report, which was stated to have been submitted to respondent No.1 by respondent No.2, the former has not disposed of the petitioner’s representation. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education, on instructions, stated that the petitioner’s representation is still pending. The petitioner retired from service in 2004 and it is not reasonable for respondent No.1 to keep his representation pending having called for the report. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to decide on the petitioner’s representation, dated 17.07.2007 in the light of the report of respondent No.2, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.8970 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 7th APRIL, 2009. kvni