APHC010144352003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 27075/2003 Between: 1. V. ISSAIAH, S/O DANAIAH, RETIRED LOWER DIVISION CLERK A.P.GENCO O/O. THE S.E. NAGARJUNA SAGAR, R/O B-20, PATIGADDA COLONY, BEGUMPET, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GENRAL MANAGER ADM HYDERABAD, A.P.GENCO LIMITED, VIDYUT SOUDHA, A-BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER ELECL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, SRISAILAM H.E. SCHEME, SRISAILAM PROJECT. ...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 pleased to regularize the services of the Petitioner herein as Lower Division Clerk with effect from the date of his initial appointment to the said cadre and release Annual Grade Increments with arrears and fix his pension with all consequential/terminal benefits accordingly, by the issuance of Writ, Order or Direction essentially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by holding that the action of the Respondents herein in not doing so and insisting upon the Petitioner herein to pass Typewriting Test at the fag end of his career and rejecting his request for exemption while exempting for others as bad, illegal, arbitrary, irrational, illogical, irrational, discriminatory and unconstitutional. IA NO: 1 OF 2003(WPMP 34289 OF 2003 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 to fix an early date for hearing of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K UDAYA SRI 2. (SC FORT SFC ZONE IV) M VIDYA SAGAR The Court made the following: ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not in contact with him for a long time, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 2. Since the matter pertains to the year 2003, the party should invariable be in contact with his advocate, however, in the present case, the petitioner had not been pursuing the case through his advocate, it shows that the petitioner had no interest in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. However, if the petitioner feels that the cause still survives, he can file appropriate application within a period of two (2) months. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 11th September, 2025 RKS