A. ROSAIAH, PRAKASAM DIST., & ANR. v. THE STATE OF A.P.,ENERGY, GUNTUR DIST.,& 3 OTRS.
WP/19191/2017 · 2025-07-24
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17478 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17478 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010238342017
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: 19191/2017 Between: A. Rosaiah, Prakasam Dist., & Anr. and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of A P Energy Guntur Dist 3 Otrs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. R ANNAPURNA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ENERGY (AP)
2. V.V. SATISH (SC FOR APSPDCL) The court made the following ORDER:-
The writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus, praying the following main relief:-
“……declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to retire the petitioners 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 o the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 05.05.2017, illegal, arbitrary and ultravires the Constitution of Indian consequently direct the Respondents to continue the petitioners upto 60 years of age in the interest of justice……”
2
2. The conspectus of the writ petition is that the petitioners are seeking continuation of their service in the respondent’s Corporation upto the superannuation age of 60 years.
3. When the matter is called today, there is no representation for the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, Sri Abdul Matheen, learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4-APSPDCL submits that the petitioners’ services were extended from 58 years to 60 years and subsequently, they retired from service on 30.06.2019. Making the said submission, he states that the writ petition becomes infructuous.
5. In view of the above stated position, the writ petition is closed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from taking recourse to law as permissible, if so advised.
6. 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 GVK
3
164
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION No.19191 of 2017
Date: 25.07.2025
GVK