APHC010717872011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) K FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 10598 OF 2011 Between: O.A.Babu, S/o Narasimha Reddy, E-625007, Conductor, Aged about 48 years, H.No.7/90-F, Near Vasavi School, Bhagyanagar, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Prakasam Region, Ongole, Prakasham District. 2. The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Ongole, Prakasham District. 3. The Depot Manager APSRTC, Giddalur Depot, Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENTS 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, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing proceedings No.PA/675(58)/2008-RM(O) dt. 19-8-2008, in so far as deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the period from removal to the date of reinstatement as not on duty for the purpose of leave and wages, as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently direct the respondent to release the annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect by the treating the period from removal to the date of reinstatement as on duty for the purpose of leave and wages. lA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 13031 OF 2011) 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 direct the 1®* respondent to release the annual increments for a period of two years without cumulative effect by treating the period from removal to the date of reinstatement as on duty for the purpose of leave and wages, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VANAM VISHWANATHAM( Not Present) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI S. VENKATESWARLU, SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following order: APHC010717872011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 10598/2011 m [3330] RAO Between: 1.0.A.BABU, S/0 NARASIMHA REDDY E-625007 H.NO.7/90-F, NEAR VASAVI SCHOOL, CUMBUM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. CONDUCTOR BHAGYANAGAR ...PETITIONER AND manager apsrtc. CONDUCTOR BHAGYANAGAR ...PETITIONER AND manager apsrtc. parakasam ONGOLE, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. 2.THE DEPUTY CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER APSRTC ONGOLE. PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. APSRTC 3.THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC PRAKASAM DISTRICT. REGION GIDDALUR DEPOT. ...RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that CoLrt therewith, the^High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring writ more RMtOtdfldTomlf"' fitting proceedings No,PA/675(58)/2008- nerin^nf t SO far as deferment of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect and treating the period from !? reinstatement as not on duty for the purpose of leave and wages, as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and direct the 1st respondent to release the annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect by the treating the period^ fror^ “d'^ges^^'" tho^urposeTf lA NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP 13031 OF 2011 stated^’tn'thraffrt'^f oircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1« respondent to release the annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect by treating the action consequently the period from removal to the date of reinstatement as on duty for the purpose of leave and wages, pending disposal of the WP. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VANAM VISHWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC Thf^ Court made the following: tk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 10598 of 2011 ORDER: Despite the matter listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation for the petitioner. It evinces that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting his case. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/- J. SAROJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC'to Sri Vanam Vishwanatham, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri S. Venkateswarlu, SC for APSRTC [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies ssb HIGH COURT DATED:04/07/2025 ORDER WP No.10598 OF 2011 ^ 1 1 AUG 2025 V *MtinTent Sectioux* DISMISSING THE W.P. FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS