IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 22133 of 2006 Between: 1 N.Vijaya Rao, s/o Ankaiah, Veligandla (M), Prakasam District. 2 D.Venkateswarlu, s/o Venkata Subbaiah, Hanumanthunipadu (M), Prakasam District. 3 K.Nageswara Reddy, s/o Sriramulu, Kanigiri (M), Prakasam District. 4 Y.Rajasekhara Reddy, s/o Ramana Reddy, Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District. 5 Dara Gopalakrishna Murthy, s/o Dass, Chinnaganzam (M), Prakasam District. 6 P.Purna Chandra Rao, s/o Venkateswarlu, Chinnaganzam (M), Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State Project Director of DPEP/SSA, O/o Commissioner & Director of School Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 the District Educational Officer-cum-Project Coordinator DPEP/SSA, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3 The Additional Project Coordinator DPEP/SSA, Prakasam District at Ongole. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the orders in O.A.No.6099/2005 dt.18-09-2006 on the file of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal as illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the Scheme (SSA) and consequently set aside the same and to pass suchother order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVASULU KURRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.22133 of 2006 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri Kurra Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners-applicants, Sri D.Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the orders in O.A.No.6099 of 2005, dated 18-9-2006, on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the Scheme (SSA) and consequently set aside the same. 3. In fact, this writ petition also is for all purposes covered by the common order rendered by us in W.P.No.21707 of 2006 and batch, dated 19-3-2008. 4. The grievance of the petitioners-applicants that is being ventilated by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners-applicants is that for some time about four months the applicants were not permitted to work. In view of that fact, they moved this Court by way of filing contempt case in C.C.No.4 of 2007 also complaining that they were not permitted to work and the salary also was not paid to them. The said contempt case was admitted and the same is pending. 5. The further grievance of the petitioners is as to whether they were really forbidden from working for a considerable period or not, and whether they were paid salary or not, is a verifiable question of fact and this Court cannot undertake that exercise. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for services-II appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that since the petitioners did not report to the duty and they were not actually on duty for that period, they were not paid salary. 7. Again, this is a question of fact to be verified. In other words, the above are oath against oath. 8. Therefore, the best course of action, in our considered view, is to give liberty to the petitioners to make a representation in detail to the respondents about the grievance of non-payment of the salary and upon such representation being made, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in detail, if necessary after according an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard personally. 9. Subject to the above observations and directions, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 10. It is needless to state that the interim order of ‘Status quo’ granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.28104 of 2006, dated 26-10-2006, is vacated. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 19th March, 2008. Ak ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}