IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 24412 of 1998 Between: M.S. Madhava W/o P.H.Balakrishna Rao O/o. Senior Accounts Officer (O & M), V.T.P.S. Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Elecrticity Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Director (Personnel), A.P.S.E.B., Vidyutsoudha, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Engineer, (O&M) V.T.P.S. Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. 4 The Senior Accounts Officer ( O & M) V.T.P.S. Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna 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 Writ, Order or Direction more in the Nature of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to have her pay revised and refixed on par with her junior Sri M. Koteswara Rao, Typist in accordance with the dictum of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.10869/84, dated 6.11.1992 as extended to other similarly situated persons with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents in not extending the said benefit to the petitioner vide Memo.No.DS (R)/DM. VII/S2-676/95-1, dated 22.9.1995 inspite of fixation of her pay by the competent authority vide Proc.No.SE/T&C/VTPS/PRS/U1/1072/95, dt. 3.8.1995 while extending the same to similarly situated persons is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and subversive of Arts.14, 16, 21 and 39(d) of the Constitution and also opposed to all canons of equity, justice and fair play and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JCS} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.24412 of 1998 O R D E R: The relief prayed for in this writ petition for extension of the benefit of pay revision was apparently redressed by the respondents themselves vide their proceedings dated 19-04-1995. 2. The aforesaid proceedings were noticed by this Court in W.P.No.1729 of 1999, dated 15-02-2008. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner’s case would squarely stand redressed and covered by the Board proceedings dated 19-04-1995, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed subject to the observation as above. No costs. ________________ 14-08-2008 kvr