THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3824 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to repatriate the petitioner to third respondent- Corporation, which was closed long ago, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the proceedings issued in G.O.Ms.No.100, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Fish.I) Department, dated 31.05.1993 and the guidelines issued by the Government, dated 25.05.1991 and 10.01.1994, consequently, direct the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner in the second respondent- Fisheries Department. It appears, petitioner was initially appointed as Supervisor in the A.P. Fisheries Corporation in the year 1978. Subsequently, he was promoted as Executive Engineer in the said Corporation. However, in view of abolition of Engineering Department in fisheries Corporation in the year 1993, G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 31.05.1993 was issued asking the Fisheries Department- second respondent to absorb the services of certain officers. The petitioner, being a gazetted officer, also sought absorption into Fisheries department, but his request was rejected. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.174, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Fish.I) Department, dated 01.11.1994, ordering deputation of the petitioner, who was working in A.P. Fisheries Corporation, as Executive Engineer, State Project Unit World Bank aided project, Office of the Commissioner of Fisheries, A.P., Hyderabad, for a period of three years, from the date of taking charge, as a special case, subject to terms and conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.10, Finance and Planning (Fin.F.,R.II) Department, dated 22.01.1993. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, his services were extended from time to time. In the meanwhile, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 28.10.1998, repatriating the petitioner to Fisheries Department. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed O.A.No.528 of 2001 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. However, the said O.A. was dismissed on 25.07.2001 and challenging the same, he filed Writ Petition No.18886 of 2001 before this Court and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, matter was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court by way of filing S.L.P.Nos.166-168/2002. Initially, on 18.01.2002, status quo was granted, but, ultimately, Supreme Court dismissed C.A.Nos.2605-2607/2003 (SLP Nos.166-168/2202) on 04.02.2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order, dated 17.12.2008, issued under G.O.Ms.No.122, Animal Husbandry, Diary Development and Fisheries (VS) Department. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.17537 of 2009 and the said writ petition was allowed quashing suspension of the petitioner from service. However, aggrieved by the same, the Department carried the matter in Writ Appeal before this Court, whereunder, an interim order was passed suspending the order of the learned single Judge, as a result, the petitioner is treated as under suspension as of today. While that being so, this writ petition is filed apprehending repatriation of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.116, which attained finality before the Apex Court. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, stated that the matter attained finality before the Supreme Court and the present writ petition is nothing but reviving the very same cause of action once again and therefore, the very writ petition is not maintainable. Sri K.Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, stated that earlier, the writ petition filed challenging orders in G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 28.10.1998 might have attained finality but the respondents cannot give effect to G.O.Ms.No.116 as of today since the petitioner is placed under suspension and the same is the subject matter of the Writ Appeal, which is pending before this Court. Be that as it may, the ultimate aim of the petitioner is that he shall not be repatriated to the third respondent- Corporation during the pendency of the departmental proceedings against him with the fisheries department. May be so, but entertaining this writ petition would be affront to the decision of the Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.2605-2607/2003, therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that this writ petition is altogether different from that of the writ petition filed earlier challenging G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 28.10.1998, which attained finality before the Supreme Court. However, an important question is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that at one side the petitioner is kept under suspension and he is proceeded with departmentally, and at the second side, the respondents are trying to relieve the petitioner under the guise of repatriation order passed in G.O.Ms.No.116. In such an event i.e., if the petitioner is relieved from the Fisheries department he would be no where. So long as the disciplinary proceedings are pending with the Fisheries Department, the petitioner cannot be relieved in the guise of repatriation and he shall not be asked to go to the Fisheries Corporation and report, which is not existing as of today. May be, the argument of the learned senior counsel seems to be little rational, but I am not inclined to go into this question in view of the fact that the very suspension order passed by the respondents was challenged before this Court by way of filing writ petition and the learned single judge allowed the same. When the same was carried in appeal by the department in Writ Appeal before this Court, an interim order was passed suspending the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same is subsisting. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to obtain suitable orders in the Writ Appeal, said to be pending before this Court, if they want to repatriate the petitioner to the third respondent- Corporation during the pendency of the departmental proceedings against him. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU 15th June 2010 dr