IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 33865 OF 2011 Between: S. Srisailam … Petitioner V/s. Central Power Distribution Co. of AP Ltd. Represented by its Chairman/Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Bokka Satyanarayana Counsel for the Respondents : Sri O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following : (Order follows next page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 33865 OF 2011 O R D E R : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for the issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the first respondent in not paying the subsistence allowances to the petitioner as per Regulation 56 of APSEB Service Regulations Part-I as adopted by APCPDCL and consequently to direct the first respondent to pay the subsistence allowances and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation Circle, Dharoor under APCPDCL. While so, the first respondent by proceedings dated 17-6-2011 placed him under suspension on the ground that he resorted to corrupt activities and was mis-utilizing APCPDCL material. In the said proceedings, it is categorically mentioned at paragraph No.6 that during the period of suspension, the petitioner will be paid subsistence allowances as per Regulation 56 of APSEB Service Regulations Part-I as adopted by APCPDCL. 4. While things stood thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is categorically contemplated under Regulation 56 of APSEB Service Regulations Part-I as adopted by APCPDCL that during the suspension period the petitioner will be paid subsistence allowance but he has not been paid the same. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent is directed to issue necessary instructions to the third respondent to pay the subsistence allowances to the petitioner, as contemplated under Memo.No. CGM (HRD)/GM/ Admn/AS(DC.II)/PO(DC-II)56-CS/2011-2, dated 17-6-2011, wherein paragraph No.6 envisages that during the period of suspension, he shall be paid subsistence allowances as per the Regulation 56 of APSEB Service Regulations Part-I, as adopted by APCPDCL till the suspension is rescinded. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH. 22-12-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 33865 OF 2011 Circulation No. Date:22-12-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43