IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO : 4 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/11/2008 in WP No: 20532 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: G. Jayarama Reddy, S/o. Late Malla Reddy, Retired as a clerk in Podduturu Town Bank Ltd. Podduturu, Kadapa District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1. Poddutur Cooperative Bank Ltd. Rep by its President Koneti Kalva Street, Poddutur, Kadapa District 2. The Secretary, Podduturu Town Bank Ltd. Poddutur, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SMT.A.PADMA Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL No.4 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) 1. Heard both sides. At their request, the main writ appeal is taken up for disposal. 2. The appellant, who is petitioner in the main writ petition, sought for release of certain funds towards gratuity. Pending writ petition, the appellant sought for interim direction to release the terminal benefits. 3. Though the main contention sought to be urged by the appellant/petitioner is that even taking into account the admitted position, as stated by the respondents, he would be entitled to the amounts and the same can be released. The learned Single Judge, having taken into consideration the submissions made on either side, held that the same have to be taken up at the time of final hearing and did not feel it appropriate to give a direction and dismissed the application. Hence, the appeal. 4. Taking into consideration the submissions made by both sides, we refrain ourselves from making any observation on merits instead we deem it more appropriate that the main writ petition itself has to be disposed of at the earliest, since the relief sought for relates to monetary claim. The question of now granting interim direction at this stage does not arise, which, in fact, amounts to allowing the very writ petition itself. 5. Hence, we do find any merits in the writ appeal and same is accordingly dismissed. However, the office is directed to post the main writ petition viz., W.P.No.20532 of 2005 before the regular Court hearing writ petitions, subject to part-heard, on 02-03-2009. There shall be no order as costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th February, 2009 Lrkm/Bss