IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4728 of 2007 Between: K. Kamalamba, W/o. T. Annamacharyulu, R/o. D.No.20-1-109, Korlagunta, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District, rep. by its Executive Officer. 2 The Accounts Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthams, Tirupathi. 3 The Superintendent, Sri Venkateswara Poor Home, TTDs, Akkarampalli, Tirupati, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein 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 sanctioning the pensionary beneﬁts to the Petitioner, on her retirement from TTD service on attaining the age of superannuation Vide Memo Roc.No.11926/2006 dt.17.1.2007 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to sanction forthwith all the pensionary beneﬁts to the Petitioner i.e. superannuation Pension, Retirement gratuity, commutation of pension value etc. w.e.f. 1.2.2007, as has been done in respect of other similarly situated staﬀ nurses, and also award interest @ 24% p.a from the date the petitioner became entitled for the pensionary beneﬁts and with all other consequential beneﬁts monetary or otherwise and pass such other order or orders as t h i s Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.SETHURAMI REDDY(SC FOR TTD) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.4728 OF 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the action of the respondents in not sanctioning the pensionary beneﬁts of the petitioner. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner states that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was sanctioned the pensionary benefits. In view of the above, nothing survives in this writ petition for further adjudication and the same is liable to be closed. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 13th November, 2008. IBL