APHC010488162021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 27 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 29438/2021 BETWEEN: 1. K SESHAGIRI RAO, S/o. LATE VENKATARAMAYYA, AGED 63 YEARS R/O FLAT NO. 4F2, KAMALA DEVI RESIDENCY BESIDE BALAJI PUBLIC SCHOOL GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO COOPERATION (MKTG VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI 2. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CHUTTUGUNTA OLD MIRCHI YARD, GUNTUR 3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE (HRM DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not fixing the pension and other re benefits due to the Petitioner in pursuance of Order dated 09.07.2018 in O.A.No.390 of 2018 and batch passed by the Honourable A.P. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 29438/2021 K SESHAGIRI RAO, S/o. LATE VENKATARAMAYYA, AGED 63 YEARS R/O FLAT NO. 4F2, KAMALA DEVI RESIDENCY BESIDE BALAJI PUBLIC SCHOOL GOPALAPATNAM, . ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION (MKTG-I) DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CHUTTUGUNTA OLD MIRCHI YARD, GUNTUR STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE (HRM DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in tated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not fixing the pension and other re benefits due to the Petitioner in pursuance of Order dated 09.07.2018 in O.A.No.390 of 2018 and batch passed by the Honourable A.P. [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO K SESHAGIRI RAO, S/o. LATE VENKATARAMAYYA, AGED 63 YEARS R/O FLAT NO. 4F2, KAMALA DEVI RESIDENCY BESIDE BALAJI PUBLIC SCHOOL GOPALAPATNAM, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE AND I) DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE (HRM-IV) DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in tated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not fixing the pension and other retirement benefits due to the Petitioner in pursuance of Order dated 09.07.2018 in O.A.No.390 of 2018 and batch passed by the Honourable A.P. 2 Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice as also provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions to the Respondents to re-fix the pension and other retirement benefits due to the Petitioner taking into consideration the pay and allowances for the interregnum period from 01.08.2016 to 31.07.2018 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not fixing the pension and other retirement benefits due to the petitioner in pursuant to the order dated 09.07.2018 in O.A. No.390 of 2018 and batch, passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner herein along with others filed application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, to extend the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, as per the provisions of Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation), Act, 1984. The said O.A.s filed by the employees working in the Central Market Fund Service under Central Market Fund Establishment, are allowed and the Tribunal is directed that all the officers and employees of the Central Market Fund Service are entitled for the benefit of superannuation at the age of 60 years, irrespective of they being parties before the Tribunal or not. 3. On perusal of record, filed in support of the Writ Petition, it appears that for non implementation of the orders, the employees of the Central Market Fund Service, filed contempt case before the Tribunal. On filing the contempt case, the respondents have come forward to extend the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years. While so, the 4 petitioner herein made a representation dated 08.09.2016 along with pension proposals and requested for sanction of pensionary benefits and stated that it is inevitable to him to retire from service at the age of 58 years to receive the pensioner benefits. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent has sanctioned service pension vide proceedings dated 25.10.2016; leave encashment vide proceedings dated 25.09.2016 as per his request letter dated 13.09.2016; and also GPF final settlement sanctioned vide proceedings dated 07.09.2016 as per his request letter dated 05.08.2016. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation on 06.08.2018 to the Special Chief Secretary to Government to direct the concerned to treat the interregnum period from 01.08.2016 to 31.07.2018 as on duty for the purpose of pay and allowances. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground that the petitioner was relieved from the employment and paid all service related benefits and fixed the petitioner’s pension. 4. Now, the present Writ Petition is filed to re-fix the pension by taking into consideration the superannuation age as sixty years, extending the age to 60 years as if the petitioner has worked for the period from 01.08.2016 to 31.07.2018. 5. The respondent authorities have filed their counter affidavit and stated that the services of the petitioner has been superannuated at his 5 request through representation dated 01.06.2018 and the case of the petitioner cannot be granted. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have filed their counter affidavit in the contempt case before the Tribunal stating that the case of the petitioner for extension of the superannuation is in the active consideration. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner would request this Court to direct the respondents for payment of pension calculating the date of retirement as 31.07.2018. 7. The petitioner has voluntarily applied for retirement of service at the age of 58 years and he received all the service related benefits and the pension was fixed on his last drawn salary on attaining the age of superannuation in July, 2016 under the respective pension rules governing the respective employment. Petitioner filed the present writ petition after 5 years of retirement to re fix pension as if the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years, pursuant to the orders of A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner having retired from service on his own volition upon attaining the age of 58 years and after lapse of 5 years cannot raise a direction to grant pension calculated on the basis of age of 60 years and to re-fix the pension pursuant to the order of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal is not tenable. As seen from the material available on record, there is no merit in the present the Writ Petition. 6 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 27.07.2026 Harin 7 88 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 29438 of 2021 Date: 27-07-2026 Harin