APHC010489362006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12380/2006 Between: 1. MOHAMMAD AMEER ALI, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, S/O.LATE MD.ALI, MECHANIC, STAFF NO.78322 APSRTC, ELURU DEPOT, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. LABOUR COURT GUNTUR 3 OTHERS, S/O.LATE MD.ALI, MECHANIC, STAFF NO.78322 APSRTC, ELURU DEPOT, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC ELURU W G DISTRICT, W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO HOUSEWIFE R/O GARIVDI, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 3. THE PERSONAL OFFICER APSRTC WEST GODAVARI REGION, ELURU, W.G.DISTRICT 4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER APSRTC ELURU W G DISTRICT, S/O.MR.A.S.JACOB CHRISTIAN SECTRETARY SALC R/O.TIRUPATI. ...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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari and quash the award passed by the 1st respondent in ID No.105/99 dated 30.11.2005 published on 28.1.2006 in so far not fixing the petitioner pay-scale on par with his juniors is illegal, arbitrary, 2 and contrary to law and consequently to direct the respondents to fix the petitioners pay scale on par with his juniors and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP 15383 OF 2006 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 fix an early date for hearing of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B P RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR 2. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC) 3. C PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) 3 The Court made the following order: Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that despite best efforts, the petitioner has not been in contact with him for a long time. Since the matter pertains to the year 2006 and the petitioner has not been pursuing the case through his advocate, it shows that he has no interest in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. However, if the petitioner feels that the cause still survives, he can file appropriate application within a period of two (2) months. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 09.10.2025 MP 4 213 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 12380 of 2006 Dated: 09.10.2025 MP