IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16399 OF 2005 Between: 1. Sri S.K. Rama Rao, S/o. Chinna Narasaiah, Aged about 74 years, R/o. IV Floor, RF3, 'B' Block, Venkat Enclave, Tikkie Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. Sri T.S.N. Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged about 72 years, R/o. Pratibha Enclave, Muralingar, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioners AND 1. The Indian Bank, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, # 66, Rajani Salai, Chennai - 600 001. 2. The Indian Banks Assn. Rep by its Chairman, Stadium House, 6*^ Floor, Block No. 3, V. Nariman Road, Mumbai - 400 020. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly may in the nature of Mandamus declaring clause 15 (iv) of the Joint Note dated 23-06-1995 which was entered into by the Indian Banks Association with All India Officers Associations of various banks as illegal, null, void, unconstitutional and issue a consequential direction to the 1 Bank to pay the difference of gratuity amount payable to the petitioners calculated on the revised pay scales and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. one respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M S PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following: APHC010426022005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] m THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ’! PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 16399/2005 Between: Sri S.k. Rama Rao, Vijayawada & Another and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Indian Bank Chennai Another and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.MS PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following: ORDER: ...RESPONDENT(S) On 07.04.2025 and 24.04.2025, there is no representation for the petitioners and the matter is posted under the caption for dismissal. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, today, there is no representation for the petitioners. This shows that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the case. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. 2. As a sequel, miscellaneous % applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// iDr^ CC to SRI. M s PRASAD 2. One CC to SRI. 3. Three CD Copies Advocate [OPUC] ambadipudi satyanarayana Advocate [OPUC] sree HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.16399 of 2005 dismissing the w.p. for non-prosecution without costs