IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1284 of 2011 Between: The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Rep., by its Zonal Manager (Engineering) Pashamyalaram, Medak District & another. … Appellants And P. Balaswamy and another. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1284 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is filed against order, dated 08.02.2011, in WPMP.No.35735 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.16847 of 2004, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to consider the case of respondent No.1 to take him into service as Technical Assistant. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants submitted that initially the learned Single Judge has granted interim suspension of award of the Labour Court and directed the appellants to pay 17-B wages to respondent No.1 pending further orders. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have passed the impugned order allowing W.P.M.P.No.35735 of 2010 filed by respondent No.1 for considering his case by reinstating him into service as Technical Assistant, pending disposal of the writ petition and he prays to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that instead of issuing notification for filling up the post of Technical Assistant, which respondent No.1 held while in service, the appellants may reinstate him into service. He further submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quite reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and perused the material available on record. A reading of the impugned order would show that initially the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to pay 17-B wages to respondent No.1. When once such a direction is there, the learned Single Judge ought not to have passed the impugned order allowing W.P.M.P.No.35735 of 2010 by directing the appellants to consider the case of respondent No.1 by reinstating him into service as Technical Assistant. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the interim order initially granted by the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to pay 17-B wages shall be continued. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: 28.12.2011 ES