IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 5437 of 2007 Between: V.Bhaskar Rao S/o.Appalaswamy Office of the Deputy Director of Social Welfare, Kakinada, East Godavari District, R/o. H.No.65-11-2, Mehar Nagar, Kakinada, E.g. Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Social Welfare, Telugu Samkshama Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P. rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Social Welfare Department, secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Director of Social Welfare, Kakinada, East Godavari 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 to issue an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the impugned Proc. Rc.No.J2/3428/97, dated 16.9.2006 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service immediately, by declaring the order of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.7358/06 dated 19.12.2006 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and unconstitutional and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.JAGADISH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. NO.5437 of 2007 ORDER : ( Per HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED ) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19-12- 2006 passed in O.A.No.7358 of 2006 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by virtue of which the O.A. was admitted and the respondents were directed to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner from the date of his original dismissal. Admittedly, the present writ petition has been filed against an interim order passed by the Tribunal, refusing to suspend the proceedings dated 16-9-2006 and to reinstate him into service. Since the matter has been seized of by the Tribunal, in the absence of any final decision in the matter, and in order to avoid any parallel proceedings, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition at this juncture. Suffice it to say that the Tribunal shall dispose of the O.A. on merits expeditiously. In the circumstances, the writ petition being meritless is dismissed accordingly. However, it is clarified that if the petitioner is continuing, he shall be continued during the pendency of the O.A. proceedings. No costs. ______________ GM, J ______________ CVR, J 16-7-2008/ KK