IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 23135 of 2000 BETWEEN: B.Mallaiah, S/o Veeraiah, R/o Gattla Kaniparthi-506 319 Sayannapet Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-500 020 2 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Warangal Region, Warangal. 3 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Warangal Depot-I, Warangal. .....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 call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the posts of Depot Clerk/T.I. Gr.III/T.I.Gr.II/Seniour Traffice Inspector (one after other ) as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct respondents 1 and 2 to grant all consequently to direct respondents 1 and 2 to grant all consequential monetary benefits declaring that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Depot Clerk/T.I. Gr.III/T.I.Gr.II/Seniour Traffice Inspector (one after other ) on par with his junious and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not considering his case for promotion to the posts of Depot Clerk/T.I.Gr.III/T.I.Gr.II/Senior Traffic Inspector, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner has died and his wife has come on record. As much as the relief sought for relates to only promotion of the deceased employee, though his Legal Representative has come on record, the cause in the writ petition will not survive in view of the demise of the original petitioner who was in service. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground for grant of relief as prayed for. 3. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th November 2008 ajr