THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.10371 of 2010 ORDER: (Per GMJ) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the Tribunal on 21.04.2010 posting O.A.No.388 of 2010 for final hearing on the re-opening day as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently to suspend the operation of G.O.Rt.No.55 dated 22.01.2010 issued by the first respondent. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in April, 1976. He was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer on 12.03.2002 and was posted to YRC Sub-Division, Peddapuram and he worked there up to 30.04.2007. Thereafter, on 01.05.2007 he was transferred and posted to the present place i.e., at Amalapuram Sub-Division and is working there. He underwent treatment for heart during December, 2008 and recovered from the disease and discharging duties at the present place. He is due to retire from service in June, 2010. While so, in regard to some disciplinary proceedings, the first respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.55 dated 22.01.2010 posting the petitioner to YRC Sub Division No.4, Visakhapatnam of YRC Division, Yeleswaram of Irrigation Circle, Dowlaiswaram. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A.No.388 of 2010 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking to declare the said G.O.Rt. as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to continue at Amalapuram. He also sought for interim relief of suspension of the G.O.Rt. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to posting of the O.A. for final hearing, he may be relieved from the present post, which would cause hardship at the fag end of his service. Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri N. Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned G.O.Rt.No.55 dated 22.01.2010 is unsustainable since it is contrary to the presidential order. He further stated that such posting would cause hardship to the petitioner at the fag end of his service. The learned Government Pleader for Services II submitted that the place of transfer in such a situation would not be a place of convenient to the petitioner and therefore, the first respondent rightly issued G.O.Rt.No.55 dated 22.01.2010. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the matter is pending before the Tribunal and the rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated by the Tribunal, without going into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to dispose of O.A.No.388 of 2010 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the mean while, the G.O.Rt.No.55 dated 22.01.2010 shall stand suspended. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 29th April, 2010 GHN Note: Issue C.C. in two days. (B/o) kk