1 CGR, J. W.P.No.8492 of 2025 APHC010161992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8492/2025 Between: Petta Chinna Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER AND Government of A.P. and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 2. M. HARI BABU, STANDING COUNSEL FOR SERP. The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the Respondents on the representation, dated 20.05.2024, made by the petitioner for payment of monthly salaries and also subsistence allowance for the suspension period though there was direction from the competent authority vide Rc.No.34/2023/ DPMU/Palnadu, dated 20.05.2024, to take action on the petitioner representation, as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to Terms and Conditions of 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.8492 of 2025 Employment of SERP Employees, 2009, and also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to take action on the petitioner representation by considering to pay arrears and also continue to pay the salary regularly as well as subsistence allowance for the suspension period in terms Condition 8.2(vi)(a) of Conditions of Employment of SERP Employees, 2009, forthwith and pass….” 2. Heard Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II for 1st respondent; and Sri M.Hari Babu, learned Standing Counsel for SERP, appearing for respondents 2 to 5. 3. Petitioner was initially appointed as Community Coordinator in the year 2000, and presently, has been working as District Project Manager at Palanadu. On certain allegations of misappropriation of funds and misbehaviour with co-employees, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Charge-memo, by proceedings, dated 20.10.2021, was issued by framing charges. Petitioner has submitted explanation to the same refuting the said allegations. However, by proceedings, dated 09.09.2021, pending enquiry, petitioner has been placed under suspension. The disciplinary authority having concluded the enquiry, imposed major punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect and warned the petitioner to amend his ways in discharging his duties in future. The said proceedings were challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.19205 of 3 CGR, J. W.P.No.8492 of 2025 2023 to the extent of imposing penalty, which is stated to be pending. Later, petitioner came to be reinstated into service on 15.08.2023 and continued to work as District Project Manager. However, petitioner is not being paid salaries. Therefore, he had submitted representation, dated 20.05.2024, to the 4th respondent, which is stated to be pending. 4. Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it would suffice to direct the 4th respondent to dispose of the aforesaid representation, dated 20.05.2024, instead of adjudicating the claim of the petitioner for payment of salaries. 5. Sri M.Hari Babu, learned Standing Counsel for SERP, appearing for respondents 2 to 5, submits that petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings for misappropriation of funds and that the reinstatement done was conditional one with a pre- condition of depositing the amount found to be misappropriated. 6. Though time was sought on earlier occasions on 02.04.2025 and 09.04.2025, to get written instructions, learned Standing Counsel for SERP could only secure oral instructions. However, he would submit that as petitioner’s representation is pending with 4th respondent, the same will be considered in accordance with law. 4 CGR, J. W.P.No.8492 of 2025 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, with the consent of both the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the representation, dated 20.05.2024, submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:17.04.2025. cs