IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1398 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 08/08/2008 in WP NO : 5418 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: P.L.N. Sarma, S/o. P.L. Narasimha Rao, R/o. H.No.59, Road No.2, New Nagole, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Indian Bank, rep. by its Chairperson and Managing Director, Head Office, 31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001. 2 The Assistant General Manager, Indian Bank, Head Office, Personnel Department, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001. 3 The General Manager, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Himayath Nagar, Hyd. 4 The Assistant General Manager, (PL), Indian Bank, Head Office, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.W.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: MR.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No :1398 of 2008 Oral Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in Writ Petition No. 5418 of 2006, dated 8.8.2008, whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge closed the writ petition reserving liberty to the appellant to avail remedies in relation to the application filed by him under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The facts in brief are that the appellant herein is a Senior Manager of the respondent-Bank. It appears, the respondent-bank introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2000 permitting its employees to retire voluntarily. The appellant in order to avail the benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme, had exercised his option. When the respondent-bank did not consider the request of the appellant in terms of the aforesaid scheme, the appellant approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 5418 of 2006, impugned in this writ appeal and this Court through order dated 8.8.2008, closed the said writ petition on the ground that since the appellant had filed an application on 21.2.2007 under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, the application made by the appellant under Voluntary Retirement Scheme would become redundant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present writ appeal. It appears, pursuant to the aforesaid order of the learned single judge, the application of the appellant under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 has been accepted by the respondent-bank and the appellant has been permitted to retire voluntarily with effect from 25.8.2008. The respondent-bank also issued proceedings dated 25.8.2008 in that regard. It appears, subsequently, an order of Censure has been passed against the appellant. It is also seen from the record, that another connected writ appeal, viz., W.A. No. 1446 of 2008, which has been filed questioning the order of the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 8333 of 2008, has been admitted by us today. In the said writ appeal, the question of propriety of the respondents in not accepting the voluntary retirement of the appellant with effect from 21.2.2007 is the issue. In view of the fact that the application of the appellant under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations has been accepted by the respondent-bank on 25.8.2008 and in view of the fact that the appellant is entitled to question the order of Censure by way of a separate proceeding, the cause in this writ appeal does not survive for consideration. Hence, this writ appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to avail the remedy of questioning the order of Censure. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 2nd March, 2009 __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J pnb