APHC010089132004 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: 20384/2004 Between: 1. SYED BASHA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT., S/O SILAR SAHEB, DRIVER, R/O H.NO.10/476, JANDA STREET, NEAR CHAMBULA BHAVI, GOOTY, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER APSRTC ANANTAPUR ANOTHER, ANANTAPUR REGION, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, GOOTY BUS DEPOT, ANANTAPUR 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 toto issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent not paying the salary to the petitioner by computing the notional increments from the date of termination to till the date of reinstatement (i.e., w.e.f. 31-8-1990 to 4-9- 1993) as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondent to pay the salary to the petitioner by computing the notional increments from the date of termination to till the date of reinstatement (i.e., w.e.f. 31-8-1990 to 4-9-1993) and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP 26677 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 to direct the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner by computing the notional increments for the period with the petitioner is out of employment i.e., from the date of termination to till the date of reinstatement (w.e.f. 31-8-1990 to 4-9-1993) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. W V S RAJESWARI 3 The Court made the following order: When the matter is taken up for consideration today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. On earlier occasion also i.e., on 12.07.2024, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It shows that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting his case. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 22.09.2025 MP 4 151 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO:20384 of 2004 Date: 22.09.2025 MP