IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYSIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.Nos.8606 of 2001 & 9438 of 2001 W.P.No.8606 of 2001 Between: S. Shyam Sunder and 8 others .. Petitioners AND Union Bank of India, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Bombay and 4 others .. Respondents W.P.No.9438 of 2001 Between: G. Jaya Jeevan .. Petitioners AND Union Bank of India, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Bombay and 2 others .. Respondents COMMON ORDER: None appeared for the writ petitioners as on the earlier occasion though the matter was posted under the caption “for dismissal”. Learned counsel for the respondents is present and ready. It is seen from the record that in W.P.M.P.Nos.10981 and 11962 of 2001 and W.V.M.P.Nos.630 and 663 of 2002, this Court passed an order on 14-03-2002 noting the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.6988 of 1992 in which Circular No.3840, dated 18-3- 1992 was challenged and directed that on implementation of new fitment formula, if any excess pay was drawn by the writ petitioners, the same can be recovered by the Bank from their respective scales after re-fitment. The orders in W.P.No.6988 of 1992 and the interim orders above referred to have obviously become final though it was stated in the interim orders that recoveries made shall be subject to further orders in the writ petition. These writ petitions themselves are only involving such recoveries from the salaries of the writ petitioners and may be in that background, none is pursuing the present writ petitions. Hence, there is but no other alternative except to dismiss the writ petitions for non-prosecution. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed for non- prosecution without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 26-11-2010 Ksn