IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 3991 of 1999 Between: S.M.V.M.Polytechnic, Tanuku, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri Mullapudi Harischandra Prasad, S/o.Late M.Timmaraju Garu, R/o. Tanuku. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (H.E.)Education (T.E.L) Department, Secretariat, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Technical Education, B.R.K.R. Buildings, IV Floor, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Labour cum Competent Authority, Under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 K.Krishna Reddy of S.M.V.M.Polytechnic, Reddy Complex, Velpur Road, Tanuku-534 211, West Godavari District. 5 Gedula Musalayya, D.No.23/79, Park Street, Society Building, Tanuku-534 211, West Godavari District. 6 K.Veeraswamy, D.No.24-96 Sajjapuram, Tanuku-534 211, West Godavari District. 7 Jarigay Lakshmanarao, D.No.21-114/7, Kocherlakotavari Street, Tanuku-534 211, West Godavari 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 third Respondent in not proceeding against the first Respondent in respect of the claims under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also directing the first Respondent to release 65% of its share in recurring expenditure including the amount payable towards gratuity to its retired employees as per G.O.Ms.No.3150, Education Department, dated 26.11.1964 to the Petitioner forthwith and further directing the third Respondent not to prosecute or otherwise take any penal or coercive action against the Petitioner under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 till the release of funds by the first Respondent 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 Petitioner:MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: 1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2.GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION. The Court made the following : ORDER: Since none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 18.02.2008, the matter was directed to be posted under the caption “for dismissal”. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal”, neither is the counsel for the petitioner present nor is there any representation on his behalf. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J) 22nd February, 2008 v v To 1. 2 CCs to 2. 2 CD copies.