APHC010102262016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: Between: D. Vasantha Raju, and Others Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. A SUMANTH ( SC FOR TTD) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 30318/2016 D. Vasantha Raju, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent: A SUMANTH ( SC FOR TTD) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3233] SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT 2 HBKM,J W.P.No.30318 of 2016 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Devasthanam. 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioners dated 27.07.2015 to extend the retiremental benefits from the date of joining the service instead of from the date of regularization of their service as per the G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 19.04.1988. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the representation of the petitioners dated 27.07.2015 is not yet considered and disposed by the respondent. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent also submits that the said representation is pending still with the respondent/Devasthanam. 5. It is very shocking to note why this application has not been attended to by the respondent/Devasthanam till date. It shows their casual approach towards the petitioners in meeting the requirement of law and facts in the interest of justice. In the absence of any orders from this Court preventing the respondent/Devasthanam to take any decision on the above said representation of the petitioners, it could have taken up and disposed of the same in all probability and fairness by now, consuming reasonable time to pay 3 HBKM,J W.P.No.30318 of 2016 its attention on the said grievance of the petitioners. Sometimes in view of the above said inordinate delay in showing response to any particular act, it indicates a callous approach and laxity on their part in discharging the duties. The respondent authorities shall not give such a scope to be felt. 6. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the respondent/Devasthanam is directed to consider and dispose of the above said representation of the petitioners dated 27.07.2015, as their services were already regularized under G.O.Ms.No.296, dated 19.04.1988, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 17.02.2025 MDP