IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 28261 of 2008 Between: S.Vishwanadha Reddy S/o.S.Obul Reddy R/o.Sullurpeta D.O.S. Colony, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Kurukonda, Rep. by its President, Paravari Satram (M), Nellore District. 2 General Manager, District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Nellore. 3 District Co-operative Officer, Aravindnagar, Nellore. 4 Divisional Co-operative Officer, Near S.R.A. Talkies, Gudur, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not disposing of the petitioner's representation dated 11.06.2008, as illegal, improper and against A.P. Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 apart from being violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for release of salary for the period 01.04.03 to 30.03.2005 as per his eligibility. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VIVEKANANDA RAMINENI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as Secretary, Tallapadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society on 30.10.1980, and subsequently he was transferred to Peddapariya, but during his tenure at Peddapariya Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, he was not paid salary for the period 1.4.2003 to 30.3.2005. Then, he made a representation dated 11.6.2008 to the respondents for payment of his salary for the aforementioned period. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the respondents have neither considered his representation nor paid the salary due to him. Inasmuch as the representation of the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondents, both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The respondents are directed to consider the representation dated 11.2.2008 made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law expeditiously.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA, J 30th December, 2008 bcj