APHC010236252004 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: 4161/2004 Between: 1. DEVULAPALLI KAMESWARA SARMA, E.G.DIST. & 3, S/O VENKANNA, RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O ANNAVARAM, SHANKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. PRAYAGA LAKSHMINARAYANA,, S/O JANAKI RAMAIAH, RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O ANNAVARAM, SHANKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. AKONDI SEETHARAMAIAH,, S/O RAMAMURTHY (LATE), RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O ANNAVARAM, SHANKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. DOSAPATI KAMESWARI,, W/O LATE VENKATARAMANA SARMA, HOUSEWIFE R/O ANNAVARAM, SHANKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. PRL SEC ENDOWMENTS DEPT HYD 2 OTHERS, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GOVERNMENT OF A.P., TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM, ANNAVARAM, SHANKHAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction i) declaring that the action of the respondents in fixing the superannuation pension of the petitioners 2 and 3 whimsically without following the A.P.Revised Pension Rules of 1980 and in not fixing the said benefits to the petitioners 1 to 4 in spite of the representation dated 5-1-2004 so far is highly arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ii) Declaring that the petitioners, who are retired religious employees of Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Annavaram, are entitled to the superannuation pension and retirement gratuity under the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 on par with the Secular employees of the said Devasthanam. iii) Directing the respondents to refix the superannuation pension and retirement gratuity of the petitioners 2 and 3 in accordance with the said rules on par with the secular staff of the said Devasthanam and fix the superannuation pension and retirement gratuity of the 1st petitioner and the family pension of the 4th petitioner under the said rules on par with the Secular Staff by specifying a time limit and iv) allowing the Writ Petition with costs. IA NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP 5469 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 direct the respondents to refix the pensionary benefits of the petitioners 2 ad 3 fix the said benefits of the petitioners 1 and 4 strictly in accordance with the A.P.Revised Pension Rules of 1980 on par with the Secular Employees of the Subject Devasthanam within a specified time limit IA NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP 16300 OF 2005 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 hear the above W.P. fixing an early date directing to post the same immediately under the Caption for orders. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T DURGA PRASAD RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N INDRANI 2. K MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS AR) 3. KOTESWARA RAO KAPPERA SC For Endowments The Court made the following: ORDER: Sri Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that all the petitioners in this writ petition have passed away and the writ petition has become infructuous. 2. On 06.03.2020 and 13.03.2020, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners and the matter has been listed after long time. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Since the matter pertains to the year 2004, the parties should invariable be in contact with his advocate, however, in the present case, the petitioners are no more and the legal representatives also not been pursuing the case through their advocate, it shows that they had no interest in pursuing the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as abated. 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