Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16049 (AP)

B.Narayanachary v. Employees' Provident Fund Organisation

WP/19604/2012 · 2025-03-13

K Manmadha Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010209012012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 19604/2012 Between: B.narayanachary ...PETITIONER AND Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T BALAJI(SC FOR EPFO) 2. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 3. RAVINDRA YANAMANDRA The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue an order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner option for higher pension as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the pension to the petitioner on the option for higher option pension scheme benefit….” 2. This Court, vide order, dated 06.03.2025 has passed the following docket order: “On 25.02.2025 the matter was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal. But, due to change of roster the matter was reopened. Today also none appears for the petitioner. Post on 13.03.2025. No further time will be granted.” 3. Although this matter was posted with the condition that “no further time will be granted”, when the matter was called for hearing today, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either personally or through advocate. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case. 4. Mr.T.Balaji, learned Standing Counsel for EPFO, for the 2nd respondent and Mr.Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC KKAC, for the 3rd respondent are present. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed. ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS