IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17781 of 1999 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17781 of 1999 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to settle his terminal beneﬁts viz., salary, leave encashment, gratuity, provident fund etc. The petitioner joined in the second respondent- Tobacco Board as Field Assistant on 05-01-1984 and was promoted as Junior Field Oﬃcer in the month of December, 1984. While working at auction platform, S.N.Padu, Prakasam District, he was promoted to the post of Field Oﬃcer in the month of July, 1987. Thereafter, he was transferred to auction platform, Guntur, in September, 1987 and worked upto 28-06-1991. While the petitioner was working as Field Oﬃcer at auction platform, Guntur, he was entrusted with the duties of Godown In-charge. On receipt of complaints by the second respondent in the year 1991 with regard to the shortage and weight loss in tobacco bales purchased by the companies viz., M/s.Shaik Mastan Saheb & C.o., M/s.Agrimmcor Ltd., M/s.K.Rama Krishna Murthy Company (P) Ltd., and Sri Venkateswara Tobacco Company, the Chairman constituted a Committee. The Committee, after verifying relevant records, submitted a detailed report. On perusing the report, the Chairman having felt that there were serious lapses on the part of the petitioner, ordered suspension and initiated disciplinary action against him. Basing on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed ﬁnal orders on 30-11-1994 imposing a penalty of reduction to the lower stage in the time scale of pay apart from ordering recovery of Rs.1,91,891.60/-. Petitioner’s grievance is that though he ﬁled an appeal before the ﬁrst respondent as against the ﬁnal orders, the appeal has not yet been disposed of and that the second respondent is also not settling his terminal beneﬁts viz., salary, leave encashment, gratuity, provident fund etc. A detailed counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the second respondent narrating the facts. It is stated that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 19-12-1994 and left to Australia without prior permission from the second respondent and that in July, 1994, he requested to issue N.O.C. for obtaining passport and since disciplinary proceedings were pending, his request for N.O.C. was not considered. Subsequently, he applied for passport showing his profession as agriculture and left to Australia without permission from the competent authority. It is also stated that the disciplinary authority passed ﬁnal orders on 30-11-1994 imposing penalty of reduction to the lower stage in the time scale of pay and ordered recovery of Rs.1,91,891.60/- and that an approximate amount of Rs.54,003/- was payable to the petitioner on account of earned leave encashment and GPF balance as on 31-10-2008. Heard Sri Penumaka Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent. The petitioner has not ﬁled the present writ petition questioning the ﬁnal orders passed on 30-11-1994 and ordering recovery of Rs.1,91,891.60/- but is only seeking settlement of his terminal beneﬁts. Inasmuch as the ﬁnal orders were passed on 30-11-1994 ordering recovery of Rs.1,91,891.60/-, and as the amount now due to the petitioner is only Rs.54,003/- on account of earned leave encashment and GPF balance, the question of settlement of claim in respect of gratuity and provident fund does not arise. Learned standing counsel submitted that though the second respondent-board has sent the remarks on the appeal preferred by the petitioner, as he is not available in the address before the appellate authority, the said appeal could not be disposed of. Since it is not clear as to whether the appeal ﬁled by the petitioner is still pending or not, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the ﬁrst respondent seeking to dispose of the appeal ﬁled by him by giving the present address for communication and on ﬁling such representation, the ﬁrst respondent shall consider and dispose of the appeal, if not already disposed of, within a period of two months thereafter. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Dt.06-11-2008 usd