Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25045 (AP)

P.Sadanandam, v. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams,

WP/16472/2018 · 2025-03-25

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010352682018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 16472/2018 Between: P.Sadanandam, ...PETITIONER AND The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “ .... 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 sanctioning minimum pay in the Time Scale of Pay in the Revised Pay Scales 2010 and 2015 to the Petitioner as arbitrary discriminatory illegal and contrary to law and consequently, direct the Respondents to forthwith sanction minimum pay of Rs.6700/- in RPS 2010 w.e.f.01.02.2010 in terms of the proceedings Roc.No.DP.1/619/DPP/98 dt.29.09.2010 of the 1st Respondent and also sanction minimum pay of Rs 13000/- in RPS 2015 w.e.f.01.10.2016 in terms of the proceedings Roc.No.B7/E7/13219/Services/2015 dt.08.11.2016 of the 1st Respondent read with proceedings Roc.No.DP1/1873/HDPP/2000 dt.04.02.2017 of the 2nd Respondent as has been done in respect of all other similarly situated full time scale contingent employees in TTDs and with all other consequential benefits monetary or otherwise.” 2. The earlier Docket Proceedings would show that none represented for the Petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “For Dismissal”. 2 3. Despite the matter being listed under the caption “For dismissal”, none represented for the Petitioner today. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for TTD appearing for respondents is in attendance. 5. In that view, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 16472 of 2018 25.03.2025 Mjl /*