IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7218 of 2000 Between: K.Chenna Reddy S/o Anmymappa, Gooty Depot, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Gooty Depot, Anantapur District. 2 The Cheif Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Anantapur Region, Anantapur District. 3 Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Anantapur Region, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a direction, order or Writ, more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing the major penalty of with holding the petitioners annual increment for two years with cumulative effect and also imposing the postponement of annual increment for a period of 2 years basing only on the recommendations of the Head Clerk/Gooty and even with bout conducting regular eneuiqry as per RTC Rules and issue the proc.No.01/118(13)/95-GTY dt.9.1.96 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional directions, and set aside the same and issue consquential directions, directing the respondents to grant all increments due to the petitioner from the date of last increment sanctioned to the petitioner, with all consquentiall benefits and pass such other or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7218 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition was posted for hearing on 17.03.2009 and as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, it was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. ------------------------------ R. SUBHASH REDDY. J MARCH 19, 2009 Tsr.