APHC010559272018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 26594/2018 Between: NARAYANA SURESH PANDEY, S/O N.BALAJI PANDEY, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. STAFF, ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMINA BANK, CHAGALAMARRI BRANCH, KURNOOL DISTRICT AADHAR CARD NO.393239831157 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE CHAIRMAN, ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMINA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.65, NEAR MARIYAPURAM CHURCH, MARIYAPURA, KADAPA TOWN -516001 ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMINA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.65, NEAR MARIYAPURAM CHURCH, MARIYAPURA, KADAPA TOWN -516001 ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMINA BANK, NIVARTHI BHAVAN, SRINIVAS NAGAR, NANDYAL 518501 KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMINA BANK, CHAGALAMARRI BRANCH, CHAGALAMARRI VILLAGE AND POST, KURNOOL DISTRICT -518553 ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA RAGHU MANNEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V UMA DEVI The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: 2 “.... a writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent no.1 to 4 not implementing the orders of the Honourable High Court in WP.No.17035 of 2003 by regularising the Petitioner as a messenger in the 4th Respondent bank as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and to direct the Respondents to treat the Petitioner as a permanent messenger in the 4th Respondent bank by recognizing the service of 27 years and by following the Honourable High Court orders in WP.No17035 of 2003 by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.” 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, M.Venkata Raghu, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, during pendency of the present petition, the services of the Petitioner were regularized and the individual retired from service last year. Learned counsel would further submit that, no further orders are required in this matter except giving a direction to the Respondents to finalize the retirement benefits of the Petitioner as per the Rules. 3. None appeared for the Respondents. 4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Respondents are directed to finalize the retirement benefits of the Petitioner as per the governing Rules and Law, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:27.03.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.26594 of 2018 Dt.27.03.2025 Dinesh