APHC010667642017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 8383/2017 Between: N Seshagiri Rao & Another, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Secy Water Resources Dept Hyd 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K V SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MALLIPUDI DHANA RAJU SC for APIDC Ltd. 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 14156/2017 Between: Manne Krishna Murthy, Guntur District,& 3 Others. and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of A P Water Resources Amaravati 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K V SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MALLIPUDI DHANA RAJU SC for APIDC Ltd. 2 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 15202/2017 Between: C Ramachandra Reddy & 4 Others, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Secy Water Resources Dept Hyd 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K V SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MALLIPUDI DHANA RAJU SC for APIDC Ltd. 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 15360/2017 Between: M. Alari & 5 Ors. and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Secy Water Resources Dept 3 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K V SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MALLIPUDI DHANA RAJU SC for APIDC Ltd. 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 17366/2017 Between: Bokka Gangachalam, Tanuku, W.g.dist.,a.p. ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Water Resources Amaravati 3 Otrs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MALLIPUDI DHANA RAJU SC for APIDC Ltd. 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 18393/2017 Between: T V Subbaiah ...PETITIONER AND Secretarty Govt And 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MALLIPUDI DHANA RAJU SC for APIDC Ltd. 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Writ Petition Nos.8383, 14156, 15202, 15360, 17366 and 18393 of 2017 COMMON ORDER:- All the petitioners herein are the employees of State Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd. (in short ‘APSIDCL’)., which comes under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners challenged the proposal of the 3rd respondent to retire them on attaining the age of 58 years and sought for consequential direction to the respondents to continue the petitioners till they attain the superannuation age of 60 years, with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioners filed the present batch of cases seeking extension of superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years by reinstating them into service. 3. At the time of initial admission of these cases, this Court had not passed interim orders in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court orders dated 05.05.2017 in SLP(C) Nos.14033-14034 of 2017, the Erst-while Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad passed the interim orders, whereunder, directing the respondent authorities to induct and continue the petitioners/employees in the service till they attain the age of 60 years. 4. Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that though the main prayer in the writ petition was fulfilled, as far as 5 the salary for the period during which they were out of employment is concerned, the petitioners have not received the same as on today from the respondent authorities. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the similarly circumstanced person, namely Sri Ch. Chinna Siva Reddy received an amount even during the period of out of employment also from the very same respondent Corporation, but the same benefit has not been extended for the petitioners herein. In that regard, learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioners would make a representation before the respondent authorities enclosing all the documents, for their out of employment salary. 5. On the other hand, Sri M. Dhana Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, submits that the 3rd respondent Corporation has complied with the interim orders passed by this Court. In respect of the payment of salary towards out of employment, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the same would be considered as per the rules in vogue and appropriate steps shall be taken, in accordance with law. 6. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, as the petitioners are senior citizens, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:- a. The petitioners are at liberty to submit written representations to the 3rd respondent by enclosing all the relevant documentary proofs with regard to their claim for salary for the period during which they were out of employment. 6 b. In the event of making such representation, the 3rd respondent Corporation shall dispose of the same, in accordance with law and as per existing rules in vogue. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 07.08.2025 GVK 7 132 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.8383, 14156, 15202, 15360, 17366 and 18393 of 2017 Date: 07.08.2025 GVK