THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 31811 OF 2010 O R D E R: Heard Sri J. Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he worked as a Constable with the Railway Protection Force. He was also promoted as a Naik, but however, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, which culminated in an order passed on 12.04.2001 by the Divisional Security Commissioner of the Force at Vijayawada, through his D.O.No. 54 of 2001 imposing on him the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. It was further ordered that the period of suspension from 15.05.1994 is to be treated as suspension only. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner at Secunderabad, who, exercising the discretion available with him, ordered for modification of the order of compulsory retirement to that of reversion from the post of Head Constable to Constable. It was also further ordered that the suspension period be treated only as suspension. Thus, the writ petitioner came to be reinstated by the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, by his Force Order No. 97 of 2002, dated 27.05.2002. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner came to be reinstated as a Constable. Once again, he gave scope for disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against him, which ultimately, resulted in Divisional Order No. 55 of 2006, passed by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Guntakal, on 05.07.2006, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Against this order, the petitioner seems to have preferred an appeal to the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, which was said to be pending still. He has also submitted a reminder to the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner on 20.07.2010. It is, therefore, appropriate that the appeal said to have been preferred by the writ petitioner against the orders of punishment imposed by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Guntakal Division, through his Divisional Order No. 55 of 2006, be disposed of within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also complained by the writ petitioner that he is not being paid his pension and other terminal benefits, pursuant to the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement from service. When once an order of punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed and given effect to, Respondents 2 and 3 herein should ensure that such an employee is settled his terminal benefits that flow from such a punishment order promptly. Without being paid pension and without settling their terminal benefits, it will become very difficult for employees to survive. It is, therefore, appropriate that the terminal benefits, if any, payable to the writ petitioner be settled as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 1st March 2011 ksld