IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8552 of 1999 Between: B. Bhaskar, S/o Laxminarayana, Office of Superintending Engineer, Transmission Lines and Sub-stations, Hyderbad Zone, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director Personnel, A.P. Transco, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Secretary (Estt.) Transco of A.P. Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, T.L.&S.S. Hyderabad Zone, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled for Revised Pay Scales, 1994 and Revised Pay Scales, 1998 as per the rules issued in B.P. (P&G Per.) Ms.No.294, dated 1-11-1994 and B.P.(P&G.Per) Ms.No. 255, dated 5-01-1999 with all consequential benefits such as arrears of salary etc. by holding the action of the Respondents in not extending the Revised Pay Scales, 1994 and Revised Pay Scales, 1998 in the guise of Letter No. DS(Estt)/AS(Estt)PO(Estt.II) (3)/565/98-2, dated 8-3-1999 of the Deputy Secretary (Estt.) Transco of A.P. Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad is a illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules issued in the aforesaid B.P.Mss. and pass such other further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.JAGANNADHA RAO (not present) Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.8552 of 1999. ORDER: Since none appeared for the petitioner on 26.03.2008 the matter was directed to be listed under the caption “for dismissal”. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal”, neither is the counsel for the petitioner present nor is there any representation on his behalf. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution. ______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 23rd April, 2008 v v To 1 The Director Personnel, A.P. Transco, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Secretary (Estt.), Transco of A.P. Limited, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, T.L.&S.S. Hyderabad Zone, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 4 2 CCs to 5 2 CD copies.