APHC010185752002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 20101/2002 Between: 1. P.K.R.BOSE, KRISHNA DISTRICT., S/O. HARI SASU, DY. COLLECTOR (RETD)., R/O. 117, LOTUS TOWERS, MOGHALRAJAPURAM, NEAR JAMMICHETTU CENTRE, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE SECRETARY HYDERABAD, REVENUE (SER.V) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING (F.W) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. ...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 toto issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 1st Respondent herein to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Memo No.62750/Ser.V.1/98-5, dt. 27-3-2000 and Memo No.16088/Ser.V.1/2000-2dt. 9-5-2000 even after the retirement of the petitioner on 31-5-2000 as arbitrary, illegal and wholly without Jurisdiction as the relationship of master and servant between the petition and the employer has come to an end and consequently direct the respondents herein to settle and pay the retiral benefits that are Legitimately due to the petitioner and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 25209 OF 2002 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 direct the respondents herein to settle and pay all the retiral benefits that are legitimately due to the petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C C S SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: On 03.09.2020, 07.07.2025 and 24.07.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner and the matter was posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. 2. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. This shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 21st August, 2025 RKS