IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12444 of 2008 Between: V. Srinivasa Rao S/o. Dasaratharamaiah National High Ways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Visakhapatnam, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman, National High Ways Authority of India (Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & High Ways) G5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwaraka, New Delhi-110 075 2 The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit (GQ) National High Ways Authority of India Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the proceedins of the respondent NO.1 herein dt. 29-5-2008 in Proceeding No. 11041/169/2006-Admn., as arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdication in the interest of justice and equity and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.TULASI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.S.VARMA (ADDL CGSC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12444 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Roads and Buildings Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh. He was sent on deputation to the National Highways Authority of India, 1st respondent herein, vide orders, dated 03.04.2003 for a period of five years. The 1st respondent addressed a letter to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, for extension of the deputation of the petitioner, for a period of one year. Inasmuch as the extension did not come within time, the 1st respondent issued office order, dated 29.05.2008, repatriating the petitioner to his parent department. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent itself sought for extension of his deputation and even while the matter is under consideration, the impugned order was passed. In their counter affidavit, the respondents state that the Government of A.P. did not accede to the request for extension of the deputation of the petitioner and in that view of the matter, there is no other alternative, except to repatriate the petitioner to his parent department. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Strictly speaking, no fault can be found with the 1st respondent in passing the impugned order. The reason is that though they made a request for extension of the deputation of the petitioner, the Government of A.P. rejected the same. Therefore, the 1st respondent was left with no alternative. However, a substantial change in the entire scenario has taken place with the issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1115 dated 22.07.2008 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Roads and Buildings Department. The deputation of the petitioner to the 1st respondent was extended by one year. In that view of the matter, the impugned order needs to be set aside, with a direction to the 1st respondent to take the G.O. into account. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to take G.O.Rt.No.1115, dated 22.07.2008, into account, and take necessary steps. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 24.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12444 of 2008 Date: 24.07.2008 JSU