IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15339 of 2008 Between: G.P. Kiran Kumar S/o G.Moses, H. No. 3-1-39/15, Charcuh Compond, Armoor, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep by its Principal Secretary Housing Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The managing Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector/Executive Director, A.P. Stte Housing Corporation Limited, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaringthe orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide his Proc. No. E1/481/2002 dated 17-12-2003 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to set a side the same, and consequentialy to admit petitioner to duty and to grant continuity of service with all consequnetial benefits and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOUSING The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15339 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Temporary Work Inspector in the Nizamabad Unit of A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited. His services were terminated on 17.12.2003, on the ground of unauthorized absence. The petitioner submitted a representation in the office of the Chief Minister, narrating his grievances. The same appears to have been forwarded to the Managing Director of the Corporation, 2nd respondent herein. He, in turn, addressed a letter, dated 03.04.2008, to the 1st respondent, soliciting the future course of action vis-à-vis the petitioner. Though nearly three months have elapsed, the 1st respondent has not taken any action, so far. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. After he was removed from service, the petitioner approached the authorities in the Government. In a way, it is comparable to an appeal against the order of termination. On receipt of the same, it was forwarded to the 2nd respondent inviting his remarks. The remarks have since been submitted and soliciting advice in the matter, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter, dated 03.04.2008, to the 1st respondent. Inasmuch as the petitioner is out of service, the steps at various levels need to be expedited. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to communicate his views on the letter, dated 03.04.2008, addressed by the 2nd respondent, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 17.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15339 of 2008 Date: 17.07.2008 JSU