IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 1814 of 2000 BETWEEN: 1 P.V. Sivaraman, S/o P.V.Naidu, R/O Dhone, Kurnool District. 2 E.Naigaiah, S/o Chinna Thimmapa, R/O Dhone, Kurnool District. 3 M.Ramachandra Rao, S/o Narsinga Rao, R/O Dhone, Kurnool District. 4 D.Srinivasa Rao, S/o Raghavendra Rao, R/O Dhone, Kurnool District. 5 S.K.Subhan, S/o Rashool Miah,R/O Dhone, Kurnool District. 6 T.Chandra Sekhar, S/o Venkataiah, R/O Dhone, Kurnool District. 7 G.Naryana, S/o G.Ramasubbaiah, R/O Dhone, Kurnool District. 8 K.Panduranga Reddy, S/o K.P.R.Reedy, R/O Dhone, Kurnool District. 9 G.S.Gabriel, S/o Gabriel, R/O Dhone, Kurnool District. 10 P.Abdulla Saheb, S/o Akbar Saheb, R/O Dhone, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Manger Director, APSRTC., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manger, APSRTC., Kurnool Region, Kurnool District. 3 The Accounts Officer,(A & I), APSRTC., Kurnool 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 will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in deducting the National Increments and other consequential benefits from the petitioners without any notice as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and consequently direct the respondents to pay back the amount deduced by virtue of circular dt 15-9-94 and to re-fix their pay duly adding the deducted national Increments; and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER : It is reported by learned counsel for petitioners that the matter has become infructuous. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th November 2008 ajr