IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10195 of 2008 Between: Dr. C. Murali Krishna S/o C. Seetha Ramaiah I/c. Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University, Public Gardens, Nampally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University rep by its Registrar, Public Gardens, Nampalli, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in not granting additional allowances and also pay scale to petitioner in which petitioner is discharging duties as librarian 1/c from the year 2003, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violation of Article, 14 and 16 of Constitution of India in spite of petitioner representations to the respondent dated 02-12-2004, 31-01-05, 26-02-2005, 27-08-2005, 13-10-06, 05-01-07, 14-09-2007, 12-10-2007, 26-10-2007, 20-02-2008 and 11-04-2008 and consequently direct the respondent to pay the additional allowances and fix the pay scale to the petitioner on par with similarly situated persons and with all other consequential benefits as otherwise petitioner will suffer serious loss and great hardship and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHALLASIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent: BH.BHARATHI DEVI(SC FOR P.S.T.UNIVERSITY) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed initially as an Assistant Librarian in the respondent-University in 1992. Ever since 23.10.2003, he is working as In-charge Librarian. He claims to have made several representations including the one, dated 11.04.2008, with a request to pay him the salary of Librarian by citing certain examples. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University. The basis for the claim of the petitioner is that he is discharging the functions of a Librarian, though on in-charge basis from 2003 onwards. The question as to whether he is entitled to be extended the salary of Librarian needs to be examined by the respondent-University. The representations cannot be kept pending. Unless and until the stand of the University is known, the petitioner would not be able to work out his remedies. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent-University to pass appropriate orders on the representations made by the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:16.06.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}