IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3315 of 2006 DATED: 25.09.2006 Between: M.S.Ramachander petitioner And The Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad, Head office, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad & ors REspondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 3315 OF 2006 ORAL ORDER: The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not releasing the terminal benefits of the petitioner with interest in terms of Officers’ Service Conditions read with State Bank of Hyderabad Officers’ service Regulations, 1979. The petitioner was employed in the respondent bank. While he was working in M.M. Grade II post, he was suspended from services on 15.12.1997 on the ground of irregular sanction of loans. Ultimately, by order dated 2.6.2000, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of “compulsory retirement”. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the Regulations of the respondent Bank, he is entitled to receive the terminal benefits and the respondents for the reasons best known to them have withheld the said amounts. It is also stated that the petitioner has made a representation dated 12.9.2005 requesting to settle the terminal benefits and release the due amount, however till date no action is taken thereon. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent bank. Both counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage. The case of the petitioner is that, though he was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement, in terms of Service Regulations of the respondent bank, he is entitled to terminal benefits viz., Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc and in spite of several persuasions and submitting representation dated 12.9.2005, no action is taken by the respondents for release of the terminal benefits. The respondents instead of keeping the matter pending, ought to have passed appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 12.9.2005. Hence, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction; The first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.9.2005 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE: 25.9.2006 12 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3315 of 2006 DATED: 25.09.2006