IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6701 of 2009 Between: V. Venkateswar Rao S/o. V. Kondaiah R/o. H.No. 16-11-20/4/6, Plot No.43, I Floor, Sripuram Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500 036. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman & Managing Director A.P. TRANSCO. Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Managing Director (HRD Commecial, IPC., Reforms, RA & IT) Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 3 The Addistional Secretary (Pensions) A.P. TRANSCO. Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 4 The Pay Officer A.P. TRANSCO. Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not passing order in the appeal filed by the petitioner against order, dated 09.09.2008 passed by respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri B.Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Following the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, final order was passed by respondent No.2 on 09.09.2008 whereby penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of two years and recovery of Rs.1,00,871.15 ps with 10% interest was imposed on the petitioner. In his affidavit, the petitioner pleaded that questioning the said order, he filed an appeal along with an application for stay on 08.12.2008 before respondent No.1 and that so far, no orders have been passed either in the application for stay or in the appeal. It is averred in the affidavit that so far, the order passed by respondent No.2 was not given effect to. Having regard to the fact that the substantive appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent No.2 is pending before respondent No.1, I am not inclined to express any opinion on merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the validity or otherwise of the order of respondent No.2. It is for respondent No.1 to decide the appeal on merits. However, as respondent No.1 has not passed any order on the stay application said to have been filed by the petitioner, in the interests of justice, the respondents are directed not to give effect to order, dated 09.09.2008 passed by respondent No.2 and consequential memo, dated 06.03.2009 issued by respondent No.3 till disposal of appeal by respondent No.1, who in turn, is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Ordered accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.8766 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st MARCH, 2009. Note: issue operative portion by ‘wire’ at party’s costs. kvni