IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURALBE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.22892 of 2010 Between: V.Visweswara Rao … Petitioner And The Chief Executive Officer, Bhagya Nagar Farmers Service Cooperative Society, IS Sadan, (Indira Seva Sadan), Saidabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.22892 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not permitting the petitioner to withdraw the subsistence allowance from SB Account No.105 of the petitioner, as arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and improper and consequently to direct the respondent authorities to pay and permit the petitioner to withdraw subsistence allowance forthwith. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was initially appointed as Clerk cum Cashier in the respondent Society in the year 1979 and subsequently promoted as Manager. While discharging his duties as Manager, he was kept under suspension by the then Managing Director of the Society vide proceedings dated 29.10.2004. It is submitted that as per the said proceedings, he is entitled to 1/3 of basic pay, which he was receiving prior to the date of suspension for first three months and ½ of the basic pay thereafter. Pursuant to his suspension, he was paid subsistence allowance till 31.05.2006 regularly and thereafter, the respondent authorities started harassing from June, 2006. In spite of repeated requests, the respondent authorities intentionally delayed in paying the subsistence allowance, which he is legally entitled to, ultimately on 23.12.2008, after a lapse of two and half years, the 1st respondent paid certain amounts. Thereafter, the respondent authorities are simply depositing the subsistence allowance in his S.B. Account No.105 at the respondent Society and the respondent authorities are not permitting him to withdraw the amounts nor allowing him to enter into the premises to withdraw the subsistence allowance. In this regard, it is submitted that he made oral and written representation to the 2nd respondent on 29.04.2010 and to the 1st respondent on 01.05.2010 and to the 3rd respondent on 27.01.2010 requesting to pay subsistence allowance and ultimately he submitted a representation dated 17.07.2010 to the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance and requesting to pay subsistence allowance. It is further submitted that the petitioner was served with dismissal order by the 3rd respondent on 31.07.2010 and he preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal and the same is pending adjudication before the appellate authority. Therefore, it is submitted that he is entitled for subsistence allowance till the disciplinary proceedings are concluded and the disciplinary proceedings are concluded on 31.07.2010 and therefore, he is entitled to subsistence allowance till July, 2010 and the respondent authorities have stopped paying the subsistence allowance from 15.10.2009. Therefore, the action of the respondent authorities in not permitting him to withdraw his subsistence allowance from his account is not justified. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, submitting that from the date of suspension of the petitioner till he was dismissed from service on 31.07.2010, the respondents have deposited the subsistence allowance in his savings account and the petitioner has withdrawn certain amounts and thereafter, he did not withdraw any amount. It is also submitted that the petitioner can always approach the bank for withdrawal of the amount lying in his account and as on date, the balance amount in the petitioner’s account is Rs.1,17,601/- and the respondents have no objection for withdrawal of the said amount. It is further submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 31.07.2010 and till that date, the entire subsistence allowance, for which the petitioner was entitled to, was deposited into his savings bank account. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are delaying in depositing subsistence allowance and he was not being permitting to withdraw the amount from his savings account. It is categorical submission on the part of the respondents that they have deposited entire subsistence allowance till the petitioner was dismissed from service on 31.07.2010. Further it is also categorical submission that they have no objection for withdrawing the amount lying in the account of the petitioner. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the respondents shall have no objection for withdrawal of the amount, so deposited by the respondents towards subsistence allowance, lying into the account of the petitioner. However, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to less payment of subsistence allowance, it is always open for the petitioner to make appropriate representation to the authorities concerned and in such an event, the respondent authorities shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 25.03.2011 LSK