APHC010220452017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 17804/2017 Between: A. Chandra Sekhara Reddy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R ANNAPURNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M. VIDYASAGAR, ( STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO ) 2. GP FOR ENERGY (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following main relief:- “……to issue appropriate Writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years is contrary to the provisions of Act 4, dated 27th June, 2014 and contrary to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 05.05.2017, illegal, arbitrary and ultravires the Constitution of Indian consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate and continue the petitioner upto 60 ears of age in the interest of justice and to pass……” 2. The sum and substance of the writ petition is that the petitioner, who is an employee of the respondent No.2-Corporation had sought for extension of service from 58 years to 60 years. 3. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 4. On 06.06.2017, this Court passed an Interim direction, directing the respondents to continue the petitioner up to the age of 60 years. 5. Sri Naguru Nagaraju, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents submits that consequent to the interim direction dated 06.06.2017, the petitioner was reinstated into service and his services were extended up to the age of 60 years. Thereafter, the petitioner was retired from the service on 31.05.2019. To that effect, learned Standing Counsel had drawn the attention of this Court, regarding the averment made in the paragraph No.5 in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. In these circumstances and also in view of the fact that as there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, by taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel and as well as the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, 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, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 25.07.2025 SRT 194 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.17804 of 2017 Date: 25.07.2025 SRT