1 APHC010198482016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 10918 OF 2016 Between: 1. Sri. J.Sudhakar, S/o. Gangesetty, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Occ: Assistant Gr-1 (Retired) Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Anantapur, Anantapur District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies, Corporation Ltd., Rep.by Managing Director, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3. The District Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Ananthapuramu, Anathapuram District. ...Respondents 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 appropriate Writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not availing the benefit and discrimination him without availing his services as regular Employee other than out sourcing employee is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent to avail benefit of age relaxation for 58 to 60 years and Continuing as regular employee on par with other employee without discriminate and pass such 2 other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: CH NAGA MEHAR BABA Counsel for the Respondents: SC FOR AP CIVIL SUPPL CORPN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following order: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.10918 of 2016 ORDER: The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following main relief: “to issue appropriate Writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not availing the benefit and discrimination him without availing his services as regular Employee other than out sourcing employee is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent to avail benefit of age relaxation for 58 to 60 years and Continuing as regular employee on par with other employee without discriminate and to pass ….” 2. Heard Sri Ch.N.Mehar Baba, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner is working as Assistant Grade-I in the 2nd respondent Corporation, viz., A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings vide No.P.Admn.A1/741/2015, dated 19.03.2015 where under the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on the afternoon of 31.03.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. Consequently, the petitioner instituted the instant writ petition seeking continuation of his services from 58 to 60 years. 4. He further submits that as the petitioner could not obtain interim orders, subsequently, the respondent authorities appointed the petitioner 4 as an employee in the respondent corporation on outsourcing basis on a monthly consolidated payment. The said outsourcing appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and petitioner’s services were come to end by the year 2018. He further reports that in view of subsequent events in the lis, he seeks for closure of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the 2nd respondent. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the writ petitioner so as to prefer detailed written representation to the 2nd respondent by duly enclosing with all documentary proofs to substantiate his claim. In the event of filing of such representation, the 2nd respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of receipt of representation. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 11.07.2025 Rns 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.10918 of 2016 Date:11.07.2025 Rns