IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 6368 of 2008 Between: 1 Mrityunjai Barma, S/o. Late Daya Devi, R/o. 3-6-23, Basheerabgh, Hyderabad. 2 Kushal Rai, S/o. Rai Mohanlal, R/o. 3-6-23, Basheerabgh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Registrar, Hyderabad. .....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 of Mandamus" or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents herein to pay the petitioners all the arrears of salary and give, accord and award all other monetary benefits arising out of and consequential to our predecessors respective dates of notional promotion to the higher post of Subordinate judges to the post of District & Sessions Judges as the case may be and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.SRI HARSHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI (SC FOR APHC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6368 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The two petitioners claim to be legal heirs of Judicial Officers, who retired from service half a century ago. At one point of time, a Division Bench of this Court, so as to remove or lessen the disparity of pay scales among the Officers posted in Andhra Area and Telangana Area, issued certain directions in W.P.No.3917 of 1989, dated 21.02.1991. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners claim similar benefit on par with those Officers who got the benefit under the judgment of this Court. The Writ Petition cannot be accepted for two reasons. First, there is no material to show that the petitioners are in fact legal heirs of those Officers who retired half a century ago. Second, there is abnormal unexplained delay, and if the Writ Petition is accepted and a mandamus is issued, it would certainly subvert public interest. The Writ Petition was listed last week, and the learned Counsel for the petitioners was absent. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption “for dismissal”. Today, it is appearing under the said caption. In spite of the same, learned Counsel for the petitioners is absent. Sri Farhan Azam, learned Advocate, representing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, seeks time. Having regard to the above brief events leading to filing of writ petition, we are not inclined to do so. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ______________ (C.V.RAMULU, J) 02.04.2008 vs To 1 The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}