IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 2350 of 2000 Between: S.Srihari S/o.late Srinivasulu Naidu Regional Engineering College, Warangal, R/o.H.No.5-11-389, Nayeem Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary Education Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner, Technical Education Govt. of A.P., B.R.K.R.Buildings Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 3 The Institution of A.P.Lokayuktha & Upa Lokayuktha, rep.by its Registrar Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 4 The Principal Regional Engineering College, Warangal .....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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the natrue of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 4th Respondent in not extending the beneﬁt of computing the past service rendered by the petitioner from 20/04/1960 to 04/04/1965 while ﬁxing the pensionary beneﬁts inspite of clariﬁcations and directions from the Respondents 1 and 2 as being illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory and consequently direct the Respondent 1, 2 and 4 to pay the pensionary beneﬁts along with arrears by taking into consideration of the service rendered by the petitioner from 20/04/1960 to 4/4/1965 with interest at the rate of of 18% pa within 2 weeks and continue to pay the same and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.S.SHARAT KUMAR (Not present) Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.2350 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) When the writ petition came up for hearing on 24-7-2008, none appeared for the petitioner and it was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, when the case is called, none appears for the petitioner nor is there any representation on his behalf. In the circumstances, the conduct of the petitioner indicates that he is not interested to prosecute the matter. The writ petition is therefore dismissed for non-prosecution. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 28-07-2008 bsc