IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 13779 of 2009 Between: T. Gowreshwar Rao S/o. Sri T. Venkat Naidu, R/o. Regadi, Srikakulam District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Urdu Galli, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Managing Director A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Urdu Galli, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 3 The Executive Director/District Collector Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 4 The Enquiry Officer,/Executive Engineer A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Narsipatnam Division, Visakhapatnam. ... RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the Appeal dt. 27-4-2009 filed by the petitioner along with the prayer for stay against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide Proceedings No. Vig.I/54/SKLM/2007-1 dt. 5- 3-2009 and contemplating to recover the amount as illegal, and arbitrary and further direct the 1st Respondent to dispose off the appeal expeditiously. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by a former Non-Technical Work Inspector of Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation, Hyderabad, the first respondent herein, complaining that the appeal preferred by him against the orders passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation, on 05.03.2009, imposing the punishment of removal from service apart from the recovery of the alleged loss caused to the Corporation, has not been taken up for consideration so far. The Board of Directors of the first respondent Corporation is the appellate authority. Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, submits that the Board of Directors of the Corporation are periodically and regularly meeting and they will consider the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner, if not already considered. It is only appropriate that the appellate authority should attend to the appeals preferred by the aggrieved employees as expeditiously as possible. The writ petitioner-employee has been removed from service. It is obvious that he is squarely dependent for his livelihood on his employment. If the appellate authority were to decide the appeal in favour of the petitioner, he will have the benefit of getting reinstated. On the other hand, if the appellate authority were to consider that there are no merits in the appeal, the petitioner will be entitled to ask for judicial review of such a decision in quick time. Therefore, it is only appropriate that this writ petition should be disposed of, directing the appellate authority, the first respondent Corporation, to deal with the appeal, dated 27.04.2009, by the writ petitioner, calling in question the correctness and validity of the orders passed by the Managing Director, on 05.03.2009, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the next three months from the date receipt of this order and pass appropriate order containing the reasons reflecting the consideration shown by the appellate authority. This order has been passed with the consent of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. The writ petition shall stand disposed of, at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 10th July 2009 kh/sj