APHC010332302004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5028/2004 Between: 1. P.G.VIJAYA KUMAR, APSRTC, NANDYAL DEPOT, S/O. LATE P.GABRIEL SR.ASSISTANT(P) R/O.NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE APSRTC HYD 3 OTHERS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER APSRTC KURNOOL REGION, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC NANDYAL DEPOT, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. SRI P C JAMES E 69655 SENIOR ASSISTANT, O/O.THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, CUDDAPAH REGION CUDDAPAH 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the circular No.PD-113/90, dt.9-10-90 condition No.8 restricting the claim of the employee for stepping up of pay of Senior Employee on par with Junior in 24 days is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and rejecting the claim of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.E1/255(13)/2003-NDL, dt3.7.2003 as illegal, consequently seeks direction to set aside the condition No.8 of Circular No.PD.113/90, dt.9-10-90 and 2 consequently direct the 2nd respondent to grant the incremental arrears by stepping up of pay of the petitioner (Senior Employee) on par with the Junior (4th respondent herein) under the revised pay scales of 1989. IA NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP 6565 OF 2004 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 grant the incremental arrears by stepping up of pay of the petitioner(Senior employee) on par with the Junior Employee(4th respondent herein) under the revised pay scales of 1989 by suspending the proceedings No.E1/255(13)/2003-NDL, dt.3.7.2003. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S A K MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) 3 The Court made the following order: When the matter is taken up for consideration today, there is no representation for the petitioner. Perusal of the record shows that this Court, vide order dated 01.08.2024, directed the Registry to issue notice to the petitioner, since the learned counsel for the petitioner is no more. Accordingly notice was sent to the petitioner, however, the same was returned unserved with an endorsement ‘No such person in APSRTC at Kranthinagar.’ Since the matter pertains to the year 2004 and the petitioner has not been pursuing his case, it shows that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. However, if the petitioner feels that the cause still survives, it can file appropriate application within a period of two (2) months. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 22.09.2025 MP 4 161 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 5028 of 2004 Dated: 22.09.2025 MP