APHC010329282002 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: 24234/2002 Between: 1. SMT.P.SEETHAMMA, W/O G. RAJU, R/O BATHAPPAGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF TRIBUNAL WELFARE, SAMAKAR BHAVAN, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER ADDL JOINT, COLLECTOR, I.T.D.A., KOTA RAMACHANDRAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICT TRIBAL WELFARE OFFICER, KOTA RAMACHANDRAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not declaring the action of the respondents in not granting national increments to the petitioner from the date of her appointment as illegal, arbitrary contrary to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Roc. B1/388/93 dated 31-3-1994, and also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to pay the National Increments to the petitioner from the date of her appointment. IA NO: 1 OF 2002(WPMP 30479 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 notional increment to the petitioner as per the order of the 3rd respondent made in Roc. No. B1/388/93 dated 31-3-1994, forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R AVULA 2. S V INDIRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER: On 09.04.2021, 07.07.2025 and 31.07.2025, 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