IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12315 of 1999 Between: 1 B.K. Behra S/o B.P. Behra R/o 1-11/5, Meerpet, Nacharam Post, Hyderabad District. 2 K. Rama Rao S/o Ramna R/o 1-11/5, Meerpet, Nacharam Post, Hyderabad Dist. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Chairman & Director Sri Aravind Pandey Steel Authority of India, Ispat Bhavan, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 2 The Zonal Manager Steel Authority of India, Ispat Bhavan, 2, Kodambokkam, High Road, Chennai- Tamilnadu 3 The Branch Manager Steel Authority of India, 5-9-13, Tara Mandal, Saifabad, Hyderabad-4 4 The Secretary Ministry of Mines Central Govt. of India, Secretariat, New Delhi 5 The Central Marketing Organisation Steel Authority of India, Ispat Bhavan, 40, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Culcutta-71 ...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 directing the respondent No.1 to 3 appoint the petitioners in the post of security guards by confirming the petitioners services in SAIL at Hyderabad Branch from the date of their appointment on 18-5-1995 of the 1st petitioner and 18-10-94 of the 2nd Petitioner as permanent employees of the respondent company, declaring the action of the respondents terminating the services of the petitioners on 30-3-99 removing the petitioner from the services as illegal by cancelling the orders passed by the Respondent No.3 SAIL, the termination letter Hys/Admn/Security/9/Division 6249 30-3-99 on the ground of terminating the contract labour as illegal, improper, and arbitrary and to take the petitioner into service with immediate effect and to pay their salary from April to till date. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. T.H. SOWBHAGYA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents. Mr. C.R. SRIDHARAN The Court made the following: Order: As there was no representation on behalf of petitioners on 11-06-2008, the writ petition was directed to be listed today, under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today, when the matter is taken up, none appears for petitioners and there is no representation. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. June 13, 2008 MRR