IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24754 of 2008 Between: Kandarpa Venkata Kamalakar Rao S/o. K.V Ramana Bhimadolu(V&M) 132KVA Sub Station W.G District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director Vidyuth Soudha Hyderabad-82 2 The Superintendent Engineer TL/SS A.P Transco,Bommuru Rajahmundry,E.G 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 appropriate writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay petitioner's salary arrears with interest and dedection of salary is illegal,arbitrary and justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI.S.RAVI RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 24754 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by Kandarpa Venkata Kamalakar Rao with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay his arrears of salary with interest. 2. The facts of the case in brief are:- The petitioner is a lineman in the 1st respondent Corporation at Bhimadolu 132KV Sub-Station, West Godavari District. A case in Crime No. 32 of 2003 came to be registered against him for the offences under Sections 494 and 498-A I.P.C. Consequent of his arrest in the criminal case, he came to be kept under suspension w.e.f. 25-2-2003. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, he filed W.P.No. 23889 of 2005. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 24-1-2006 with a direction to the Executive Engineer, A.P. Transco, TCL Division, Rajahmundry to review the case of the petitioner for revocation of suspension. The petitioner came to be reinstated in service on 20-9-2006. According to him, he is not paid full wages for suspension period and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the respondents to pay the arrears of the salary. 3. When the writ petition came for admission, Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for 1st respondent Corporation received notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 4. Respondent No. 2 filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was being paid full salary as per Rules adopted by the Transco. Para 6 of the counter affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “It is submitted that the petitioner was suspended for his involvement in criminal case and was reinstated subsequently. During the suspension period, he was paid subsistence allowance and on his reinstatement he was being paid full salary as per the Regulation 56 of the APSEB Service Regulations as adopted by APTRANSCO which he was drawing earlier after making compulsory deductions like profession tax. The petitioner is being paid Rs. 8030/- as per his entitlement. In addition to the compulsory deductions, at the request of the petitioner, deductions were made from his subsistence allowance @ Rs.800/- per month from June, 2003 to September, 2003 and Rs.1800/- in October, 2003, Rs.600/- in December, 2003, and @ Rs.800/- per month in January, 2004, March, 2004 to January, 2006 towards repayment of the loan taken by him from the Arrayapuram Co- operative Bank Ltd., and Rs. 500/- in November, 2004, Rs.1,000/- in December, 2004, @ Rs.500/- from January, 2005 to October 2005 and Rs.1,500/- in December, 2005 towards repayment of the loan taken by him from APSEB TLC Circle Employees Cooperative Society, Rajamundry. On account of subsisting Court attachment in EP No. 137/05 in O.S.No. 660 of 2002, dated 19-6-2006 of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Tanuku for an amount of Rs. 27,641/- deduction was made @ Rs. 2,343/- from the gross salary of September, 2006 to January, 2007 and the remaining amount of Court attachment was remitted by him directly in the above Court”. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing with the consent of the both parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the criminal case registered against the petitioner is likely to be compounded and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the respondents for regularization of the suspension period. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the criminal case is still pending and the petitioner is at liberty to make representation for regularization of period of suspension after disposal of the criminal case. 7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make fresh application for regularization of the suspension period after the disposal of the criminal case filed against him. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 19th January, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 24754 OF 2008 19th January, 2009.