D.Y.Setti v. The Telangana State, Rep., By Its Principal Secretary,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO W.P.No.5032 of 2017

ORDER

It is the case of the petitioner that he worked as Government Pleader for Medical and Health, Family Welfare Department, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and three other Departments during the period from October, 2009 to July, 2014 in Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

The Government fixed a fee of Rs.2,000/- per each contempt application vide G.O.Rt.No.41, dated 11.01.2013. He further states that he appeared in 72 contempt applications in respect of respondents 1 and 4, fourteen contempt applications in respect of respondent 1 and 6, five contempt applications in respect of respondents 1 and 5, three contempt cases in respect of respondents 1 and 7 and nine contempt applications in respect of respondents 2 and 8. Thus, he is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,06,000/- from respondents 1 , 2 and 4 to 8. He also states that he appeared in 59 contempt applications in respect of respondents 3, 9 and 10 and thus, entitled to an amount of Rs.1,38,000/-.

Pursuant to the several representations submitted to the respondents before bifurcation of the State, the Director of Medical Education, A.P., sanctioned an amount of

Rs.2,64,000/- and Rs.64,000/- for some of the contempt cases. Though the said amount was sanctioned and bill was submitted, the same was returned by the PAO, Hyderabad, with the following objection:

"The expenditure may be debited to the appropriated head of account" the said objection was raised on 31.3.2014. In spite of repeated persuasions with the concerned no positive action has been taken by the concerned for the objections raised by the PAO Hyderabad and finally I have addressed a letter to the Director Medical Deduction Telangana State on 26.8.2015 but the same was not considered for arranging payment." The petitioner further states that he submitted a representation dated 20.08.2015 to the respondents giving all the details of the contempt applications in which he appeared. When no action was taken by the respondents, the present writ petition was filed.

In spite of giving sufficient opportunity, no counteraffidavit is filed by the respondents. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the individual Heads of the Departments indicating the outstanding fee. On receipt of such representation, the respective Heads of Departments shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO 11th April, 2017 rkk