THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.535 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings vide Board Rc.No.1/30-6-2004, dated 01.07.2004, issued by the second respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Section 116-C of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). It appears the father of the petitioner while working as Night Watchman-cum-Attender in the second respondent-P.A.C.S, Madugula expired in harness on 12.12.2000 and a certificate to that effect was also issued by the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Madugula on 21.12.2000. The petitioner made a representation to the second respondent Society seeking his appointment on compassionate grounds. The second respondent sent a proposal to the first respondent-Divisional Cooperative Officer, Yelamanchili Division, who in turn passed orders on 23.03.2002 appointing the petitioner as Night Watchman-cum-Attender and since then the petitioner is working continuously as such. However, the second respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 01.07.2004 terminated the services of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. In the impugned order of termination dated 01.07.2004 it is stated that the appointment of the petitioner in society was not approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies as required under Section 116(c) of APCS Act 7 of 1964; that the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in Ordinance No.11 of 2003 has extended the application of A.P (Regulation of appointments to public service and rationalization of staff pattern and pay structure) Act, 1964 to Cooperative Societies registered under the Act and that continuation of service of the petitioner in the Society is not needed, and therefore, services of the petitioner are liable to be terminated immediately and accordingly terminated. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the impugned order of termination was passed, the petitioner was never terminated from the service and he is being continued in service as of today. He also contended that the impugned order has been passed without giving any notice to the petitioner, and therefore, the same is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and on that ground alone the writ petition is liable to be allowed. He further contended that in similar circumstances, this Court disposed of W.P.No.9406 of 2003 and batch, dated 13.05.2003, observing as under: “Once the proposals in respect of staffing pattern qualifications pay scales and other allowances are sent and are pending, it is not appropriate for the authorities to issue the impugned proceedings of termination, without taking a final decision on the said proposals. Under the circumstances, it is agreed to by the learned Government Pleader that till the final decision on the proposals of staffing pattern etc. is taken by the authorities the petitioners shall not be retrenched/removed. In view of the said submission of learned Government Pleader, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to retrench/remove the petitioners herein from service till final decision is taken on the proposals. No costs.” According to the petitioner, the proposals in respect of staffing pattern qualifications pay scales and other allowances are still pending with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Visakhapatnam. Further, the impugned order has been passed without giving any notice to the petitioner. Therefore, looking from any angle, termination of services of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. Hence, the impugned order of termination is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 30.03.2010 va