THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION NO.22649 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard both the sides and at their request, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for disposal when the application for vacating stay came up for hearing. The brief facts, which gave rise to the present proceedings, are that the contesting respondent, who has been employee in the State Government, was initially appointed as Junior Assistant and working since 20.08.2002. He was transferred to the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Mehdipatnam Circle, vide proceedings in RC.No.A2/76/2007 dated 31.05.2007 and he was relieved on 01.06.2007. According to the petitioners, in spite of appointment at Mehdipatnam, he was absent from duty from 13.06.2007 to 24.07.2007. However, in the mean while, the contesting respondent approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad {“the Tribunal” for brevity}, by way of O.A.No.3225 of 2007 against the orders of transfer and the same was allowed. Subsequently, the orders of transfer were set aside. In terms of the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioners passed fresh orders continuing the contesting respondent at Malakpet and on the same day, he reported back to duty. Thereafter, the contesting respondent filed representation on 08.08.2007 seeking payment of salary for the period from 13.06.2007 to 24.07.2007 treating it as a compulsory wait. The said representation was rejected and the contesting respondent approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.No.5095 of 2007 and the Tribunal by its order dated 29.08.2007 directed the fourth petitioner herein to consider and dispose of the representation dated 08.08.2007. The petitioners disposed of the said representation on 17.09.2007 stating that he should apply for leave for the unauthorized absence depending upon the eligibility of leave. Hence, the Writ Petition. The only short point that arises for consideration is as to whether how best the alleged absence from 13.06.2007 to 24.07.2007 should be treated. Indisputably, the petitioner was working at Malakpet and thereafter, he was transferred to Mehdipatnam. Later, the order of transfer was rescinded by the authorities. When once the order of transfer is set aside, he will be deemed to be continued at Malakpet but not at Mehdipatnam. The absence of the contesting respondent during the alleged period would only be an excuse but not otherwise. The petitioners could not possibly insist that he would have been attended at Malakpet nor his absence could be stated to be at Mehdipatnam when once the order of transfer was set aside. The Tribunal has gone into all these aspects and rightly granted the relief in favour of the contesting respondent by setting aside the order impugned. In view of the same, we do not find any merits in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 13th April 2011 RRB