APHC010288362017 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: 21380/2017 Between: N.suryanarayana, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C H MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE (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 a Writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in retiring the petitioner by way of superannuation with effect from 30-06-2017 on attaining the age of 58 years as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and unreasonable and to direct the 4th Respondent to continue the petitioner in service till attaining the age of 60 years with all benefits and to pass……” 2. The sum and substance of the writ petition is that the petitioner, who is an employee of respondent No.3-Corporation had sought for extension of his services 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 30.06.2017, this Court passed an Interim direction, directing the respondents to continue the petitioner up to the age of 60 years. 5. Conversely, Ms. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for the respondents submits that consequent to the interim direction of this Court dated 30.06.2017, the petitioner was reinstated into service and his services were extended up to the age of 60 years. Thereafter, the petitioner was retired from service on 30.06.2019. 6. In these circumstances and also in view of the fact that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, by recording the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, 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 198 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.21380 of 2017 Date: 25.07.2025 SRT