WP/33147/2011 of V.Chinnayya Naidu, Vs Deputy Registrar of Coperative Societies, on 30 December 2011

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent. Though the 2[nd]respondent was served with the notice but he is notrepresented either in person or through the counsel. Therefore, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at theadmission stage.

2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking forissuance of writ of mandamus to declare the impugned letterdated 09-04-2011 of the 2[nd] respondent as illegal and setaside the same and further direct the 2[nd] respondent hereinto pay the entire balance of subsistence allowance of `69,926-50 to the petitioner forthwith.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Assistant Secretary in the 2[nd] respondent Society. Whileso, surcharge proceedings have been initiated against thepetitioner into which an enquiry was conducted andultimately by proceedings dated 29-05-2003, the petitioner held not guilty. Thereafter, a new manager came, who raised the petitioner under suspensionby letter dated 27-12-2004, questioning which, he filed a writpetition in W.P.No.8804 of 2007. The said writ petition wasdisposed of on 18-4-2009 directing the respondents toconduct an enquiry in accordance with law. Consequently,by proceedings dated 27-11-2009, the petitioner wasremoved from service. Questioning the said removal order,the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.5998 of 2010. While inWPMP No.7730 of 2010, the petitioner sought for a directionto the respondent to pay the subsistence allowance and thisCourt, by order dated 08-12-2010 passed an interim orderdirecting the 2[nd] respondent to consider the representationof the petitioner for payment of subsistence allowances. Accordingly, the 2[nd] respondent paid some amount to thepetitioner towards the subsistence allowances. Still thecase of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to claiman amount of ` 69,926-50 towards the subsistence allowance.

The petitioner also contends that he is also entitled to ` 29,513/-, which is a part of the total amount of ` 69,926-50. In respect of the said amount i.e., an amount of ` 29,513/-, the petitioner says that as per the letter dated 09-04-2011 addressed by the 2[nd] respondent to the petitionerinforming that by letter dated 09-04-2011, the President of the 2[nd] respondent-Societycertified that the payment of subsistence allowances to thepetitioner from the date of the suspension till the date of

removal has been paid and also further contends that anamount of ` 6,905/- was also paid as an excess amount. Itis also stated in the letter that a balance of ` 29,513/- is paidby way of cheque bearing No.153305 credited to the StateBank of India, Kothakota Branch dated 27-7-2011. Thecontention of the petitioner is that when the petitionerapproached the bank i.e., the State Bank of India, KothakotaBranch to verify the same, the Bank issued a letter dated24-6-2011 to the effect that no cheque bearing No.153305has been received by the bank. Therefore, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner submits that pending considerationof the main claim i.e., a total claim of ` 69,926-50, thepetitioner is entitled to get the amount of ` 29,530/- forthwithas it is an admitted amount. Based on the said amountaverred in the writ petition, the learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that by not paying the substanceallowances to the petitioner for the period in respect of thesuspension of the petitioner before removal, the petitioner isput to hardship. Therefore, he seeks a direction to the 2[nd]respondent to pay the amount claimed in the writ petition. All the facts narrated in the writ petition are disputedquestions of facts. No representation on behalf of the 2[nd]respondent against whom the petitioner made the claim.

4. Under these circumstances, it is not desirable topass the orders on merits of the case. It is also the case ofthe petitioner that in respect of the injustice done by the 2[nd]respondent, the petitioner also reported the same to the 1[st]

respondent but the 1[st] respondent had not taken anyaction. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of at theadmission stage as under:

“The petitioner is given a liberty to makeappropriate representation within a period oftwo weeks from the date of receipt of the copyof this order making all the claims with entiredetails, within four weeks thereafter, therespondents are directed to consider the sameand pass appropriate orders in accordancewith law. No costs”.

______________________

Justice G. Chandraiah

Date:30.12.2011.Note: Furnish CC within a week.

B/O

mrb