IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8979 of 2008 Between: G. David Raju S/o. Jacob R/o. Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Food Corporation of India, rep. by Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi. 2 The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office, 3, Haddows Road, Chennai-600006. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus: (I) By calling for the records relating to and connected with proceedings No. Vig.4(5)/2007, dated 26.06.2007 and set aside the same holding it absolutely illegal, arbitrary, uncosntitutional and violative of principles of natural justice; (II) To direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension as on duty. (III) To direct the respondents to revise the pension and terminal benefits by declaring that the petitioner retired as Manager (Depot); and (IV) Also to direct the respondents to re-fix the pension and all other service benefits namely arrears of salary, pension, etc., in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents : MR.B.ANJANEYULU The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed in the Food Corporation of India. By 2007, he was working as Depot Manager. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and through order, dated 26.06.2007, the second respondent imposed the punishment of reversion to the lower post. Soon thereafter, the petitioner retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation. Aggrieved by the order of reversion, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 16.08.2007. His grievance is that the appeal has not been disposed as yet. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is, no doubt, true that not much time has elapsed, since the petitioner had preferred an appeal. All the same, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is out of service and the order of reversion had its own impact upon the terminal benefits, the first respondent has to pay attention to the appeal. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.24.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}