APHC010413322013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13154/2013 Between: 1. J. RAMANAREDDY,, S/O VENKATAREDDY, AGED: 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O DOOR NO: L PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK, KONDAPI VILLAGE & MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO, GOVERNMENT, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. COMMISSIONER OF COOPERATION AND REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 3. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICERCUM DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 4. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOVERNOR ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of respondents on IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13154/2013 J. RAMANAREDDY,, S/O VENKATAREDDY, AGED: 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O DOOR NO: L -294C, KAMEPALLI RAOD, OPP: PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK, KONDAPI VILLAGE & MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO, GOVERNMENT, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. COMMISSIONER OF COOPERATION AND REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICERCUM DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOVERNOR ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be ssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of respondents on IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] J. RAMANAREDDY,, S/O VENKATAREDDY, AGED: 57 YEARS, OCC: 294C, KAMEPALLI RAOD, OPP: PINAKINI GRAMEENA BANK, KONDAPI VILLAGE & MANDAL, ...PETITIONER STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO, GOVERNMENT, COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER OF COOPERATION AND REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICERCUM DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, REP. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOVERNOR ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be ssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of respondents on 2 the petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2013 submitted for payment of salary arrears and subsistence allowance for the period i.e 09.112000 to 23.04.2001 and 08.07.2002 to 10.09.2007 as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of settled principles of service jurisprudence and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and also provisions of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and rules framed there under and consequently direct the respondents to initiate necessary action as against 4th respondent for payment of the salary arrears and subsistence allowance during the said suspension period and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 16168 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents to take necessary steps on the petitioner's representation dated 04.02.2013 for payment of the salary arrears and subsistence allowance during the suspension period i.e 09.11.2000 to 23.04.2001 and 08.07.2002 to 10.09.2007, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI 2. RAVI KUMAR C 3. HANUMANTHA RAO BACHINA The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of subsistence allowance for the period from 09.11.2000 to 23.04.2001 and for the period from 08.07.2002 to 10.09.2007. 2. The petitioner is alleging denial of subsistence allowance for the said periods during which the petitioner was placed under suspension pending certain enquiries. It is submitted that the petitioner was reinstated into service. However, the 4th respondent did not pay the salary arrears and subsistence allowance during those periods. It is submitted that the denial of subsistence allowance has resulted in hardship to the petitioner and that the 4th respondent has exhibited irrational treatment to the petitioner, whereas the employees who were placed under suspension were extended subsistence allowance during the period of their suspension. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the petitioner was not on the rolls of the 4th respondent during the period of suspension and that he was working on the rolls of Chandrasekharapuram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society and thereafter the petitioner worked in Punur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society till 17.11.2009. It is submitted that the subsistence allowance would be extended to the employees who are under suspension and on the rolls of the 4th respondent-Bank. 4 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent. 5. The petitioner has not placed anything on record to show that he was in the service of the 4th respondent during the period 2000 to 2007. In the absence of the petitioner submitting any proof of service with the 4th respondent, the petitioner cannot claim any relief from this Court, more so a direction to the 4th respondent to release the subsistence allowance for the period during which he was not in the service of the 4th respondent. 6. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 16.04.2026 PNS