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 : 8983 of 2008 Between: Shaik Sattar S/o Mastan Saheb APDDCF Ltd., R/o H. No. 5/12, Salt Kotar Road Opp: Darga, Chinna Ganzam (Post & mandal) Prakasham District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P. Dairy Development Coop. Federation Limited, Lalapet, Hyderabad. 2 The General Manager, Prakasam District Co-op Milk Producers union Ltd., Ongole, Prakasam District ...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 especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not regularizing the period of the Petitioner from 24-01-1994 to 22- 10-1998 and not releasing the Monitory benefits to the petitioner from 24-01-1994 to 22-10-1998 and not releasing the Monitory benefits to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 21 & 300A of Constitution of India, and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: M.DILIP RAO (SC FOR APDDCFL) The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner was employed in the A.P. Dairy Development Cooperative Federation Limited, the 1st respondent herein. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, through charge sheet, dated 22.7.1995. The enquiry officer submitted a report, holding that the main charges leveled against the petitioner were not proved. Taking the same into account, the petitioner was exonerated of the charges, through proceedings dated 29.3.2003, issued by the 2nd respondent. It was, however, observed that the petitioner was absent without proper sanction of leave, for the period from 24.1.1994 to 22.10.1998, and that the leave, to which the petitioner is eligible, would be sanctioned for the corresponding period. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued orders dated 28.4.2003, directing that 33 days of Earned Leave, and 60 days of half pay leave, commuted to 30 days, covering the period from 24.1.1994 to 27.3.1994, is extended, and the remaining period up to 22.10.1998, is regularized, as the period without pay and allowances. The petitioner retired from service. He made a representation dated 8.4.2005, with a prayer to pay the salary from 1994 to 1998. Through the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Animal Husbandry Department, the same was forwarded to the 1st respondent, vide letter dated 20.4.2005. The petitioner complains that no action has been taken thereon, by the 1st respondent, and seeks appropriate direction, in this regard. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is a matter of record that the petitioner remained absent from 24.1.1994 to 22.10.1998. While dropping the charges against him, the 2nd respondent observed that the petitioner would be extended the benefit of leaves that are to his credit. It emerges that as against the period of about 4 ½ years, the petitioner had only 33 days of Earned Leave and 60 days of half pay leave, to his credit. The issue assumed finality and the petitioner is not able to show that any error has crept into calculation. When admittedly, the petitioner did not attend to duties, during that period, and it was not covered by leaves, the question of paying the salary to him, for that period, does not arise. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 24th April 2008 PAN