IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16089 of 2008 Between: V. Raji Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, ODCMS Limited r/o. H.No. 2-10-816/2, Teachers Colony, Waddepally, Hanmakonda, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Orugallu District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, rep by its President, Karimabad, Warangal, Warangal District. 2 The Business Manager, Orugallu District Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Karimabad, Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS 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, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the arrears of salaries to the petitioner for the period he worked i.e. 1-10-2002 to 31-3-2005 and also the service beneﬁts and re-appointment to the post of Salesman, pursuant to the representation dt. 14-11-2007, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith pay the arrears of salaries and service beneﬁts and further consider the case of the petitioner for re-appointment to the post of Salesman, and to grant. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.YESHWANTH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents:. The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Salesman in Orugallu District Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, the ﬁrst respondent herein. He was retrenched from service, vide orders, dated 31.03.2005, on the ground that the business activity of the ﬁrst respondent has been reduced. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 14.11.2007, with a prayer to pay the salary from 01.10.2002 to 31.03.2005, terminal beneﬁts for 28 years, and to reengage him, in view of the proposed expansion of the business. His grievance is that his application has not been considered so far. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner, dated 14.11.2007, is for extension of three beneﬁts, namely salary for the period from 01.10.2002 to 31.03.2005, terminal beneﬁts for 28 years, and reappointment. So far as the ﬁrst two reliefs are concerned, he cannot put forward the same before the ﬁrst respondent, at this stage. Further, he has to approach a diﬀerent authority under the relevant provisions of law. When the same is pointed out, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not intend to press those two prayers. Coming to the third claim, namely reengagement of the petitioner, much would depend upon the necessity and requirement of the ﬁrst respondent. Inasmuch as the petitioner has been retrenched, it goes without saying that as and when any need arises, a retrenched employee must be reengaged. This Court cannot record a ﬁnding as to whether the activities of the respondents have increased and if so whether they need appointment of persons. However, in case the respondents undertake to appoint persons for their activities, the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that as and when the respondents undertake to appoint fresh Salesmen, the case of the petitioner shall be considered on priority basis. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.08.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}