APHC010142022004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 18493/2004 Between: 1. B. BHASKAR REDDY, CHITTOOR, S/O RAMACHANDRA REDDY, EX- AAO (NB) LIC OF INDIA, R/O BAIRAGIPATTEDA, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ZONAL MANAGER SAIFABAD HYDERABAD 1, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONAL OFFICE, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NELLORE. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the first respondent in issuing vide reference O.S. Pension Cell dated 24-2-2004 and also the stand taken by the first respondent in his reply notice dated 13-9-2004 rejecting my claim under Rule 32 of LIC Pension Rules 1995 as being illegal, arbitrary and ultravires of powers apart from the total violation of Rule 32 of Pension Rules 1995 and also Principles of Natural Justice and also affects my very right to life under Article21 of Constitution of India IA NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP 24325 OF 2004 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 issue directions to the respondent to fix up my Pensionary benefits duly entitled and other benefits as per Rule 32 of Life Insurance Corporation of India Pension Rules 1995 and disburse 50% of the same to cover my medical expenses and my sustenance and maintenance of my family Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M DORAI RAJ Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J U M V PRASAD (S C for LIC) The Court made the following: ORDER: On 06.03.2020 and 11.03.2020, there is no representation for the petitioner and the matter has been listed for dismissal. Inspite of such direction, the matter was not listed under the caption for dismissal. Today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. It shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 22nd September, 2025 RKS