IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7324 of 2009 Between: Labala Satyanarayana, S/o. Domburu, Central Warehousing Corporation, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Central Warehousing Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, C.O. 4/1, Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016. 2 The Deputy General Manager (Personal), Central Warehousing Corporation, C.O. 4/1, Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016. 3 The Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Regional Office, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the respondents:AGP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in seeking to terminate the petitioner’s services pending appeal before respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is an employee of respondent No.1 Corporation. Presently, he is working as Junior Superintendent at Narsannapalli, Kamareddy. He got employment under Scheduled Tribe quota as he claimed to belong to “Jatapu” community. The District Collector, Vizianagaram, after following the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 passed order, dated 01.06.2007, cancelling his community certificate. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order before respondent No.4. His application for stay was rejected by respondent No.4 vide memo, dated 28.08.2007. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.19858 of 2007 in this Court challenging the said order. The said writ petition was disposed of on 27.09.2007 with the following directions: “In these set of circumstances, I consider that the balance of convenience rests at present in favour of the writ petitioner only. I therefore set aside the impugned order dated 28-8-2007 and direct the respondents not to subject the writ petitioner to any penal consequences in proceedings (M) Rc.No.727/2005 C5 dated 1-6- 2007 pending further orders on the Appeal preferred by him against the said orders, which Appeal was entertained by the first respondent and kept pending. However, the writ petitioner shall also not seek or secure any further benefits from now for himself or for any other dependent family member of his as members belonging to the scheduled tribe till such time, the appeal is decided by the State Government. It is only appropriate that the State Government shall dispose of the appeal at its earliest convenient time, at any rate on or before 30-4-2008.” Though the appeal is not disposed of so far, by impugned letter, dated 26.03.2009 respondent No.2 is seeking to terminate the services of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that order, dated 01.06.2007 is the subject matter of appeal before respondent No.4. The impugned letter does not show that the appeal was disposed of. Though respondent No.4 was directed by this Court to dispose of the appeal on or before 30.04.2008, the said appeal is evidently not disposed of. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the termination of petitioner’s services during the pendency of appeal would cause serious hardship to him. Therefore, I deem it appropriate that respondent No.2 shall wait till disposal of appeal by respondent No.4. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of by directing respondent No.2 not to give effect to impugned letter, dated 26.03.2009 and continue the petitioner till disposal of the appeal by respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.9599 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 8th APRIL, 2009. Note: issue operative portion by ‘wire’ at party’s costs. kvni