APHC010291512002 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: 20546/2002 Between: 1. T VENKATA SWAMY S/O MADDULETE, S/O MADDULETE, R/O 62/182, CHINTABA RAO STREET, KURNOOL, ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER 3 OTHERS, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KURNOOL REGION, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KURNOOL DEPOT - I, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY PROVIDENT FUND TRUST, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. 4. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER FAMILY PENSION SCHEME, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MUSHEERABAD, 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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the pension under the Employees pension scheme benefits to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unjust; and consequently direct the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner from the date of his retirement and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 25738 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 to pay the monthly pension benefits under Employees Pension Scheme pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K NARSI REDDY ( SC FOR APSRTC RAYALASEEMA ) The Court made the following: ORDER: On 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