APHC010161892017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 20110/2017 Between: K Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Kurnool ...PETITIONER AND The A P State Warehousing Corp Hyderabad 2 Otrs. and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K JAYASREE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR AGRICULTURE & COOPERATION (AP) 2. A.V.G. MADHAVA RAO (SC FOR APSWC) The Court made the following ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking indulgence of this Court, praying the following relief:- “……declaring the action of the Respondents directing the petitioner to retire on attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years by 30th June, 2016 as against the enhanced age limit of 60 years for superannuation, without implementing the provisions of A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act 2014 (Act 4 of 2014), as highly illegal and arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against the service rules of A.P. State Warehousing Corporation Employees Service Regulations and not only opposed to principles of natural justice but also to legitimate expectation 2 and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till attaining the age of 60 years while setting aside the proceedings No.SWC/EI/112/2017-13, dated 27-04-2017……” 2. No representation for the petitioner on 04.07.2025. Today also, despite the matter being listed under the caption for dismissal, none appeared for the petitioner. 3. Sri A.V.G. Madhava Rao, learned Standing Counsel for A.P Warehousing Corporation appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2, submits that the petitioner retired from service on 28.04.2017 itself by receiving all terminal benefits and the writ petition renders infructuous. 4. Apparently, the writ petition was instituted way back in the year 2017, when the petitioner was aged about 58 years. More than seven years have elapsed from the date of institution of the lis and as on date, the petitioner’s age would be approximately 65 years. Since the petitioner would have already attained age of superannuation, the relief sought in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. 5. In these circumstances and in the absence of representation from the petitioner side, this Court is of the view that merely keeping the writ petition pending would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, the writ petition is closed. 6. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from taking recourse to law as permissible, if so advised. 3 There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 11.07.2025 GVK 4 260 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.20110 of 2017 Date: 11.07.2025 GVK