THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No.1966 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioner questions the action of the respondents in keeping the office order of the 3rd respondent, dated 26-09-2001, in abeyance. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1975 he was appointed as Badli Operator on temporary basis and in the year 1979, his services were confirmed. Subsequently, in the year 1994, he was promoted to the cadre of Supervisor, which is equivalent to the post of Chargeman and since then, he has been working as Supervisor in the 1st respondent company. While so, on 04-01-2000, the Affluent Treatment Plant outlet to K-Main Sewer Connection of the 1st respondent company was disconnected by the Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The said disconnection was carried out on the direction of the Chief General Manager (Engg.), EM & SC, Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, by his letter, dated 31-12-1999. Consequent to blocking of the Effluent Treatment Plant outlet to K-Main Sewer connection by Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, the services at Effluent Treatment Plant was grinded to halt. The efforts made by the 1st respondent company to restore the Effluent Treatment Plant outlet to K-Main sewer connection of Hyderabad Metro Water and Sewerage Board could not be materialized. At that time, the petitioner came forward to help the Organisation and was successful in getting sewer connection restored. In appreciation of his services towards organisation and as a gesture of reciprocation on the part of the Management, the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings, dated 26-09- 2001, granted two advance increments to his present scale with effect from 14-09-2001 without change in the date of annual increment. But, the said order was not implemented and the increments were not paid and therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. A counter has been filed stating that some of the Union leaders have approached the respondent Management and strongly objected for granting two advance increments to the petitioner, as it leads to some problem among co-employees of the petitioner. Therefore, the order of the 3rd respondent was kept in abeyance. A perusal of the material available on record goes to show that no orders have been passed keeping the order of the 3rd respondent in abeyance. As long as the said order is not modified or rescinded or cancelled or kept in abeyance in writing, there cannot be any justification on the part of the respondents in not acting upon the said office order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take a final decision with regard to giving effect to the office order, dated 26-09- 2001, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If final decision, as indicated above, is not taken, the office order shall be implemented, after expiry of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 08-10-2010 Prv