IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15765 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND T.Rajeshwar S/o.Mallaiah Tax Section Circle No.6, MCH, R/o.H.No.152/C, Old Santosh Nagar colony, Saidabad Post, Hyderabad - 59. .....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 issue an order, or direction or the writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 05.02.2007 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3480 of 2003 and set aside the same and pass such further or other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.JANAKI RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.B.KRISHNA MOHAN RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15765 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Order dated 5-2-2007 passed in O.A.No.3480 of 2003 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to set aside the same. Respondent herein filed the said O.A. to direct the petitioner herein to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by him on 18-12-2002 and to treat him as if he was in service upto 30-9-1997 as Bill Collector and pay all consequential benefits i.e. pension, gratuity and other benefits. It was the case of the respondent (applicant) before the Tribunal that he was appointed as Bill Collector in September,1956 inr the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. As he fell ill during the year 1979, he sent four leave applications. As there was no improvement in his health, he submitted a letter on 22.8.1980 seeking voluntary retirement. An enquiry was initiated against him and he was let-off with a minor punishment. It was also the case of the respondent herein that it was stated by the writ petitioner that he was removed from service, but the order of removal was not served on him. No enquiry was conducted before passing the alleged order of removal from service and no subsistence allowance had been paid to him. Therefore, he filed the O.A. seeking the aforementioned reliefs. Petitioner herein filed a counter stating inter alia that the applicant absconded from duty for 10 years and after conducting a detailed enquiry, he was removed from service vide Proceedings dated 8-3- 1996 of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. directing the Corporation to pay subsistence allowance till the applicant attained the age of superannuation and thereafter, to pay provisional pension till the termination orders are served on him, in accordance with the Rules. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard both sides and perused the entire material made available on record including the Order of the Tribunal. The specific case of the respondent herein (applicant) before the Tribunal was that he was not served with the alleged termination order dated 8-3-1996. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Corporation to produce the acknowledgement of service of termination order. But, the petitioner herein could not produce the acknowledgement of service of termination orders before the Tribunal. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal held that the respondent herein is entitled to subsistence allowance till the date of his retirement and thereafter, provisional pension till the termination orders are served on him. Even before this Court, the acknowledgment of service of termination order is not produced. Once the termination order was not served on the employee or the acknowledgment thereof was not placed either before the Tribunal or this Court, the Tribunal was right in directing payment of subsistence allowance to the respondent herein. Before this Court, the learned standing counsel for the petitioner states that the files are misplaced. Under those circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the Order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Writ Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) June 24, 2008 ____________ (C.V. RAMULU,J) prk