THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28982 of 2008 Dated 03rd August, 2010 Between: K.P. Chowdhary …Petitioner And The Aluminimum Industries Limited, Hyderabad, and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V. Ramchander Goud Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri V. Srinivas Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri S.V. Ramana for Sri Mr. O. Mahohar Reddy, standing counsel for APTRANSCO The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in disconnecting the power supply to the petitioner’s quarter as illegal. I have heard Sri V. Ramchander Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri S.V. Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel representing respondent No.2. The petitioner is a former employee of respondent No1. His services were terminated for the alleged misconduct. The termination order appears to be under challenge in an appeal before the Managing Director of respondent No.1. Despite his dismissal from service on 30.04.2007, the petitioner is still in occupation of the quarter allotted to him by respondent No.1 while in service. On the requisition given by respondent No.1, respondent No.2 disconnected the power supply to the said quarter. Questioning the said action, the present writ petition is filed. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the gratuity has not been paid to his client, his client cannot be evicted from the quarter and that in order to force his client to vacate the premises, respondent No.1 has resorted to the action of disconnection of power supply through respondent No.2. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that his client is a sick company which is before B.I.F.R. and that non-payment of gratuity to the petitioner cannot be a ground for him to retain possession of the quarter. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.1 is the registered consumer at whose request power supply is disconnected. In my opinion on the termination of services, an employee cannot claim a right to continue in possession. No regulation is placed by the petitioner before this Court which gives a right to him to retain possession till dues payable to him are settled by the employer. The petitioner’s right to receive the dues raises a totally different dispute and therefore, the petitioner cannot link the same with his entitlement to continue in the quarter. As the petitioner was admittedly dismissed from service, he is not entitled to insist that respondent No.2 shall continue electricity supply so long as he remains in the quarter. As respondent No.1 is the registered consumer, respondent No.2 is obliged to follow the direction given by it for disconnecting the power supply. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order dated 30.12.2008 passed in W.P.M.P.No.37893 of 2008 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.37893 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd August, 2010 GHN