APHC010463402005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] FRIDAY, THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.6820/2006 Between: 1. S.K.BASHA SAHEB, KADAPA DISTRICT, S/O SHAIK NANNE SAHAB, RETIRED AS LINE INSPECTOR, O/O ADDL.ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O), RESCO, VEERABALLE, KADAPA DISTRICT, NOW APSPDCL, R/O VONGINALLA VILLAGE, RACHAPALLI POST, VEERABALLE MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE APSPDCL, RENIGUNTA ROAD, TIRUPATI, REP., BY THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE RESCO LTD., RAYACHOTI, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (O), APSPDCL, RAYACHOTI, KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (O), EAST, APSEB, (NOW APSPDCL), KADAPA. ...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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not treating the writ petitioner as the employee of Board (Erstwhile) viz., parent Department and denying him the service benefits viz., pension etc., as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and 2 consequently hold that the petitioner be treated as the Board Employee on par with similarly situated persons and release all the benefits and to pass such other or further orders under the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2006 (WPMP 8771 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 direct the respondents to release all the pensionary benefits including pension by treating the petitioner as the Board Employee, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V S KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P LAXMA REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) 2. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL 3. P LAKSHMA REDDY 4. V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL) The Court made the following 3 ORDER: When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has passed away on 14.02.2016, and she is not in a position to contact his legal representatives. In view of the aforesaid submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as abated leaving it open to the petitioner to reopen the Writ Petition if his legal representatives are interested to proceed with the case. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:24.07.2026 DSH Whether the order is: Speaking √ Reasoned Reportable Non-Reportable √