IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 28459 of 2008 BETWEEN: G.Prasad S/o.G.Gangaiah, Gram Panchayat Yerrepalle Pulivendula(M) Kadapa District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer Pulivendula(M) Kadapa District 2 The Project Director(N.R.E.G.S) District Water Management Agency Kadapa District 3 The District Collector Kadapa District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned proc issued by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer and Program Officer Pulivendula (M) Kadapa District placing the petitioner under Suspension with the effect from 26-8-2008 is as illegal arbitrary and unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Field Assistant Yerrepalle Pulivendula (M) Kadapa District with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated Nil passed by respondent No.1 suspending the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in WP.No.26264 of 2008 this Court set aside the order passed against similarly situated person on the ground that the said order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, without framing charges and without holding enquiry. 3. A perusal of the said order shows that the order impugned in the said writ petition was one of termination and not suspension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if the respondents have power to suspend the petitioner, no provision is made for payment of subsistence allowance. 5. As the impugned order passed is one of suspension, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. However, the respondents are directed to consider the payment of subsistence allowance, if such a provision is available in respect of the post held by the petitioner. The respondents shall finalize the enquiry and pass final orders within a period of three month from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J December 29, 2008 DSK