THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.17201 OF 2000 28th October 2009 Between: G.Nagaraja Rao. …PETITIONER AND The A.P.A.T., Hyderabad, rep.by its Registrar and four others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.17201 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioner, who was working as Draughtsman-III in Roads & Buildings Department, filed this Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 15.12.1999 in O.A.No.824 of 1993 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissing an application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, where he sought correctness of the order of the second respondent in his Memo No.5645/87/88 dated 27.10.1992 and consequently to direct the respondents to release all the benefits to which he is entitled as Work Inspector Grade IV from 07.02.1974. The facts, in brief, are that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Draughtsman Grade-III. Subsequently, the third respondent issued Memo dated 25.01.1989 promoting the petitioner from Grade-III to Grade-V. Hence, the petitioner filed appeal through proper channel and also marked a copy directly to the Chief Engineer. It is the case of the petitioner that the said appeal is not disposed of. However, the third respondent once again passed an order dated 26.10.1992 reiterating the same decision. The grievance of the petitioner, in short, is to the effect that having already passed an order, the question of disposing of appeal, which was filed before the appellate authority is unsustainable. Hence, this Writ Petition. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that there is no dispute to the aforesaid background and even nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the respondents nor any orders have been passed by the Chief Engineer, who is the appellate authority-the fourth respondent. The petitioner filed his representation on 23.02.1989, which shows that he has not received any orders thereof. Having regard to the said fact and the appeal not being disposed of, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to withhold the same. In view of the same, without going into the merits of the case, it would suffice in the interest of justice to direct the fourth respondent to dispose of the said appeal and representation dated 23.02.1989 in accordance with law after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner as well and communicate the same to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is allowed and the application dated 15.12.1999 filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal is ordered. The appeal stands restored to file. It is also made clear that the said appeal shall be disposed of uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court or even by the authorities. To avoid any further delay or inconvenience in case the representation not being available, the petitioner is directed to file a copy of the said representation before the fourth respondent within a period of two {2} weeks from today. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ___________________ (G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 28th October 2009 RRB