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: 8321 OF 2005 Between: M.S.R. Veeresh Babu, S/o. Surya Rao, Retired Employee R/o. C/o. T. Vijay Anand Rao, Principal, Gandhi Nagar, ist Street, Nidadavolu, West Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Commissioner Employees Provident Fund, Barakatpura, Hyderabad. 2. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Employes Provident Fund Organization Sub Regional Office Rajahmundry, West Godavari. 3. Assistant Accounts Officer (Pension), Employees Provident Fund Organization Sub Regional Office Rajahmundry, West Godavari. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court ntay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly on^ in nature the of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. % AP/SRO/RJY/PEN.Cell/NPPO/171-172/421 of Asst. (Pension) dt. 27-6-2004 Accounts Officer arbitrary, illegal, with jurisdiction, consequently direct the respondents to relief the pension to the petitioner under old scheme. are LA. NO: 1 OF 2005fWPMP. NO: 11023 OF 20051 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to direct the respondents to pay the pension of Rs. 911/- instead of Rs. 516/- for month pending disposai of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K GOVIND Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. P RAMABHOOPAL REDDY The Court made the following Order: APHC010026622005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [333;>] THURSDAY .THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8321 /2005 Between: M.s.r. Veeresh Babu, ...PETITIONER AND Commissioner Employees Provident Fund 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KGOVIND Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.P RAMABHOOPAL REDDY 2.. The Court made the following: ORDER: On 28.03.2025 and 17.04.2025, there is no representation for the petitioner 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 petitioner. This shows that the petitioner not interested in prosecuting the case. 2. IS 3. Accordingly, the Writ no order as to Petition is dfsmissed for r non-prosecution. There shall be costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall closed. stand Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. One CC to Sri. K Govind 2. One CC to Sri. P 3. Three CD Copies Advocate fOPUC] Ramabhoopal Reddy Advocate [OPUC] vna HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.8321 of 2005 X 2 6 SEP 2025 m iP. Current becuon ^ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS