1 APHC010162502016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 41746/2016 Between: Thota Veera Babu, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B MAYUR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) 2. A RAJENDRA BABU 3. V KISHORE The Court Made the Following Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to issue a writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in particular the 4th respondent herein in issuing the resolution in item No 18 dated 2 29.07.2016 resolution of the 3rd respondent vide reference No 1/Board and G B meeting / APCBA/2016 dated 1882016 and the memo Ref No Estt/25/201612 dated 02112016 which sought to retire the petitioner herein at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years as being without any foundation in fact or law and done by the respondents with the sole intention of prejudicidng the legitimate right of the petitioner herein and thereby illegal arbitrary irrational and violative of Sec 31 of the amending Act of 2014 r/w the Act of 1984 and also in violation of law laid down by this Honble Court and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the amending Act of 2014 as well as the Act of 1984 and therefore set aside the same and to pass...” 2. The sum and substance in the present lis is that the petitioner is seeking continuation of his service upto the age of 60 years. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent societies would submit that the writ petitioner retired from the service on 30.11.2016. Thereafter, on 29.12.2016, the respondent/bank has also paid all terminal benefits to him. Therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 5. As seen from the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner was aged about 58 years at the time of filing the writ petition. In fact, the petitioner sought for continuation of his services upto the age of 60 years. However, due to efflux of time, petitioner would have already crossed 65 years as on today and the prayer sought by the petitioner would not survive for consideration. 3 6. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that merely keeping the writ petition pending would yield no useful purpose. Therefore, the writ petition is closed. 7. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from taking recourse to law as permissible, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 21.07.2025. Asr 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.41746 of 2016 21.07.2025 Asr