IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 10434 of 2002 Between: 1 M.Devadas, S/o M.Doraiswamy Annamacharya Project, T.T.Devasthanam Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 Smt. B.Eswarhy, W/o B.Subrahmanyam Annamacharya Project, T.T.Devasthanam Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 M.Balasubrahmanyam, S/o M.Narayanaswamy, Annamacharya Project, T.T.Devasthanam Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Executive Officer Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupathi Chittoor District. 2 The Director, Annamachrya Project, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupathi Chittoor 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 petitioners are entitled for the pay scale of 910-1625 insted of 740-1150 from the date of their appointment with all consequential benefits fo Revision of Pay Scale on that basis including arrears and other attendent benefits by holding the action of the respondents in not giving the scale of 910-1625 to the petitioners while extending the said scle to other Artists Garde-II eventhough they are similarly situated is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and sub versive of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of he Constitution of India Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RADHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MS.P.SARADA The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioners are entitled for the pay scale of 910-1625 instead of 740- 1150 from the date of their appointment with all consequential benefits of Revision of Pay Scales on that basis including arrears and other attendant benefits. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners, Mr.A.Radha Krishna, seeks permission of the Court to permit the petitioners to withdraw the petition. It is represented by the learned counsel for Petitioners that the respondents agreed to consider the case of the petitioners. 3. In view of the representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, permission is accorded to withdraw the Writ Petition. However, if the grievance of the petitioner is not considered, it is left open to the petitioner to approach this Court and file a separate petition. 4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Dated June 15, 2009 KSH