Medisetty Uma Maheswari, v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh,
In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh Writ Petition No.32352 of 2011 Between:
M.Uma Maheswari and others ... Petitioners and The Govt. of A.P., and others
...Respondents
Date of Judgment Pronounced: 06-08-2015 Submitted for Approval:
The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.32352 of 2011 Dated 06.08.2015 Between:
M.Uma Maheswari and others ... Petitioners and The Govt. of A.P., and others
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.K.Jagadeeshwar Reddy for Mr.NV.Anantha Kishore Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP for School Education Counsel for respondent No.5: Mr.SR.Sanku The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:
"to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the impugned action of the Respondents in not disposing of the representations, dated 14.09.2011, 28.09.2011, 11.10.2011 and the telegraphic message, dated 15.11.2011, and not paying the arrears of salary of 45 days for the months of June and July, 2011, without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice etc., and consequently, direct the Respondents to dispose of the said representations without further delay and pay the arrears of salary."
Mr.K.Jagadeeshwar Reddy, learned Counsel representing Mr.N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has addressed letter, dated 03-08-2015, to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court wherein he has stated that his clients have requested him to withdraw the Writ Petition.
Today, at the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the said request. The request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is accepted and the Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.40205 of 2011, 11507 of 2012 and 44873 of 2013 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 6th August, 2015 LUR