APHC010145342018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 6368/2018 Between: J Tavitayya ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L V S NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V N NARASIMHAM 2. GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 6368/2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 5th and 6th respondent in not extending the age of retirement of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years in terms of Provisions of Act 4 of 2014 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the resolution No 4 dated 28.09.2016 of the General Body of the 5th respondent Society and consequently direct the respondents to raise the age of retirement of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years in terms of the Provisions of Act 4 of 2014 by continuing the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits till the petitioner attain the age of 60 years as per the Resolution No 4 dated 28.09.2016 of the General Body of the 5th respondent Society……” 2. Heard Sri L.V.S.Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner worked till attaining the age of 60 years and retired on superannuation. In the light of the judgment in the batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.4861 of 2018 and batch dated 12.05.2024, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court clearly held that the superannuation from 58 to 60 years is not applicable to the case of the petitioner since the institutions are not falling either under Schedule IX or X. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the petition may be disposed of observing that since by virtue of the interim orders, the petitioner retired after superannuation at the age of 60 years but he is not entitled for any benefits during the period of 58 and 60 years. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the relief has become infructuous in this matter since the individual has retired after attaining the age of 60 years and the petition may be disposed of. 5. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed since the relief has become infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 26.06.2025 UPS HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.6368 of 2018 Dated.26.06.2025 UPS 14