IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1096 of 2000 Between: N.V.V.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Nageshwar rao, Raidupalem, Kakinada, East Godavari District., ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist. Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Rep by its General Manger, Kakinada, East Godavari District., 2 The Branch Manger, D,C,C,B.Ltd., Nagamallithotha Branch, Kakinada, E.G.Dist., .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e., on 11-11-1983, is unjust, illegal, discrimination, violative of article 14,16, & 21 of the constitution of India and as such set aside the same with an consequential direction to the respondents herein to regularise the services of the petitioner from the 11-11-83 and to pay the difference of wages with consequential benefits forthwith in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S. SRINIVAS REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e., on 11-11-1983, is unjust, illegal, discrimination, violative of Article 14,16, & 21 of the constitution of India and as such set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner from the 11-11-83 and to pay the difference of wages with consequential benefits forthwith in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders” At the hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for both the parties that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration, as the petitioner was dismissed from service on charges of theft. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.12.2008 va