IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETTION No.8671 OF 2001 Between: K. Koteswara Rao ..... Petitioner And 1. Andhra Bank, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager (HRD) & Relieving Authority, Pattabhi Bhavan, PB No.6, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Assistant General Manager (D.M.) And Appellate Authority, Personnel Department, Head Office, Andhra Bank, Hyderabad. 3. The Chief Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Personal Department, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Warangal. …Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETTION No.8671 OF 2001 ORDER: Heard Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Dr.K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The learned standing counsel for the respondents has submitted that the writ petitioner has taken voluntary retirement from the bank on 28.02.2001 and received a total of Rs.14,06,369/- towards the provident fund and all terminal benefits and the dispute involved herein, as seen from the impugned order, dated 25.09.2000, is only in respect of the gross sum of Rs.4,806/- and the same is not pursued at the time of taking voluntary retirement. 3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had no instructions on the same. But, in the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, the continuance of the writ petition is unnecessary after the writ petitioner has accepted the voluntary retirement and received all the voluntary retirement benefits without any protest and without reserving any right to challenge any events that happened prior to his voluntary retirement. The acceptance of the voluntary retirement and the benefits received thereunder by the writ petitioner indicate acquiescence in the earlier actions of the bank and waiver of any rights against it in respect of such action. Hence, there is no purpose in continuing the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that in the event of the writ petitioner instructing him to revive the cause and pursue the challenge, he may be permitted to do so. The writ petitioner will be always at liberty to move an appropriate application before this Court for any purpose, if it is so required and permissible. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 2nd December, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETTION No.8671 OF 2001 December 02, 2010. KL