APHC010754592016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 46200/2016 Between: 1. K.A.SALAM, S/O K. IMAM SALAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, APSRTC DHARAMAVARAM DEPOT, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, RTC 'X'ROADS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DIST. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C, ANANTAPUR. 4. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C,KADIRI BUS DEPOT, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A.Rama Rao 2 The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of 'Mandamus' declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in so far as imposing punishment against the petitioner by withholding annual grade increments which will have effect on petitioner's future increments(with cumulative effect) as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and set aside the order No.PA/19(07)/2015 dated 2-04-2015 issued by the 3rd respondent in so far as imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with effect on petitioner's future increments ( i.e. cumulative effect) against the petitioner including the treating the period from the date of removal to the date of reporting to duty as 'not on duty' for all purposes and consequently direct the respondents to pay salaries to the petitioner from 27-08-2014 to 2-04-2015 with all consequential benefits and permit the petitioner to file a Review before the 2nd respondent as per the Rules to be considered by the 2nd respondent on merits….” 2. On 24.09.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption „for dismissal‟. 3. Today also, despite the matter being listed under the caption „for dismissal‟, none appeared for the petitioner. From this, it appears that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 25.09.2025 Ivd 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.46200 of 2016 Date: 25.09.2025 Ivd