APHC010707272012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21794/2012 Between: A.kamalamma,chittoor Dist State Of Ap Prl Scy Rev Hyd 2 and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J UGRANARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B.V.KRISHNA REDDY(STANDING COUNSIL FOR TTD) 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 3. CH MURALI KRISHNA (SC FOR TTD) 4. A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 21794/2012 ...PETITIONER AND State Of Ap Prl Scy Rev Hyd 2 and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): B.V.KRISHNA REDDY(STANDING COUNSIL FOR TTD) ENDOWMENTS CH MURALI KRISHNA (SC FOR TTD) A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 Order:- The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has passed away during the pendency of the writ petition. It is also submitted that the learned counsel has made efforts to trace the legal heirs of the petitioner, however could not get any breakthrough. 2. That apart, the petitioner is challenging the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in not deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the denial of service benefits for the break period from 13.09.2003 to 02.05.2007. The petitioner was working as a sweeper in the 2nd respondent, who imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on account of certain irregularities committed by her. 3. The 2nd respondent, after conducting an enquiry, reinstated the petitioner vide proceedings dated 24.07.2006, however, denied the service benefits for the break period. Aggrieved by the said proceedings the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent which the 2nd respondent has forwarded to the 1st respondent for consideration. The 1st respondent in turn, re-forwarded to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent vide appeal, dated 19.03.2008 which, is pending consideration. 4. The petitioner had attained the age of superannuation long back and also passed away during the pendency of the writ petition. 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, further orders in the present set of facts and circumstances cannot be passed 3 by this Court to adjudicate whether the petitioner would be entitled to any service benefits during the break period. 6. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 27.01.2025 PNS