1 APHC010616042004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 24099/2004 Between: V. Yerram Naidu, Vizianagaram & 3 Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep.by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 6 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.24099 OF 2004 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following main prayer, which reads as under: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (1) declaring the proceedings of the CPM/Hyd.Lrr.No.P3/544(3)/04.P.O.IV. dated 17.09.2004 of the office of the 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings of the Works Manager No.P1/255 (10) 2003-ZWS-VZM, dated 05.10.2004 are illegal and arbitrary; (ii) declaring that the petitioners being ITI qualified Coach Builders are eligible for rectification of anomaly in pay fixation of confirming special grade scales in comparison with the respondents 4 to 7 (iii) direct the respondent- Corporation to step up the pay of the petitioners in comparison with the respondents 4 to 7 consequent on the placement in the special grade scales with all consequential monetary benefits and to pass any other order or orders………..” 2. Today, there is no representation for the writ petitioners. It is apt to note that on 23.01.2025 when there is no representation from the side of the petitioners, the matter stands posted to today under the caption of ‘for dismissal’. Unfortunately, today also none appeared for the petitioners. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation Sri Tarlada Vinod Kumar, reported that the petitioners 2 to 4 are all retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, on 01.03.2019; 31.05.2024 and 31.03.2019 respectively. 3 4. By taking into consideration all the above aspects coupled with continuous absence from the side of the petitioners’ counsel, it seems even the first petitioner is not evincing any interest to prosecute his case, this Court deems it fit to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:24.01.2025 Rns 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.24099 OF 2004 Date: 24.01.2025 Rns