IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 15560 of 2008 Between: M.Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o. Late Rajagopalareddy, R/o. G4, Haritha Enclave, IIIrd lane official colony, Maharanipeta visakhapatnam-2 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office No.3, Haddows Road, CHENNAI-6 2 The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office Haca Bhavan IIIrd Floor, HYDERABAD. 3 The District Manager, Food Corporation of India District Office, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4 The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office Near Nataraj Theatre, KARIMNAGAR. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in affecting recovery of arrears from petitioners salary from 1-3-2003 to 30-11-2004 without notice to him as illegal arbitrary and unjust, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art 226 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the petitioners salary from 1-3-2003 till date forthwith by protecting the petitioners salary from 29-4-2003 given on his ad hoc promotion. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.GAJENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: B.ANJANEYULU(SC FOR FCI) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Watchman in Food Corporation of India. He was promoted on ad hoc basis as Typist on 29.04.2002. When he was sought to be reverted vide proceedings, dated 22.07.2003, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20335 of 2004. On dismissal of the writ petition, he filed W.A.No.1841 of 2005. It is stated that on the strength of the interim orders passed in the writ petition as well as writ appeal, the petitioner is continuing as ad hoc Typist. This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in affecting recovery of salary from 01.03.2003 to 30.11.2004. Heard Sri B.Gajendra Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Anjaneyulu, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. No proceedings are placed before this Court as regards recovery for the period mentioned above. Even if the version presented by the petitioner is treated as true, it is referable to his ad hoc promotion to the post of Typist and fixation of pay scale for it and the entire matter is the subject matter of a writ appeal. This Court is not inclined to entertain a separate writ petition. If the petitioner is so advised, he can file a miscellaneous petition in the pending writ appeal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to canvass his grievance by filing a miscellaneous petition in W.A.No.1841 of 2005. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.07.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}