IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8314 of 2008 Between: S. Yadavanandan, s/o. Late S. Mallaiah, Under Suspension, A.P. State Handloom Weaveres Co-op. Society Limited, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND AP State Handloom Weavers Co-op. Society Ltd. Rep by its Managing Director, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the action of the respondent in continuing the petitioner under suspension is illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits, and to grant Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.G.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CH.JAGANNADHA RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8314 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Inspecting Officer/Manager in the respondent-society. He was placed under suspension vide orders, dated 12.05.1999. This was followed by a domestic enquiry, issuance of notice to the petitioner and submission of explanation by him. The grievance of the petitioner is that though nearly 8 years have elapsed, the respondents have not taken any steps and his continued suspension, for such a long period, cannot be sustained in law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petition came up ‘for admission’ on 17.04.2008. Learned Standing Counsel was given time till today, to obtain instructions. He has placed before this Court, a copy of the proceedings, dated 29.03.2008, through which the respondent removed the petitioner from service. It is not known as to whether a copy of this order was served upon the petitioner. Be that as it may, once the petitioner was removed from service, the question of examining the validity of continued suspension does not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is entitled to be paid the subsistence allowance at the rate indicated in sub-Section (6) of Section 47 of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, expressed a doubt as to the very applicability of the provisions of the Act, in view of the post held by the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the remedy under the Act needs be examined, as and when the petitioner institutes the proceedings. In case, the order of removal is challenged before an authority under the Act, it shall also be open to the petitioner to canvass the question as to the adequacy of subsistence allowance and the authority, in turn, shall take the same into account. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies against the order of removal as well as non-payment of subsistence allowance. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 21.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8314 of 2008 Date: 21.04.2008 JSU