1 APHC010309982017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 24240/2017 Between: M Radha Krishna, Anantapur Dist & 3 Others and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of Ap 5 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S V INDIRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY (AP) 2. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL The Court Made the Following Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the Proceedings S00 CGMHRD Ms No 2 584 Dated 29.06.2017 in so far as it relates to amendment of service regulations for enhancing of superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years will come into force w.e.f 30.06.2017 as arbitrary illegal discriminatory malafide violating Article 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Regulation of Age of superannuation Amendment Act 2014 Act No 4/2014 and contrary to the directions of the Honorable High Court in WP No.18205/2014 and Batch Dated 07.03.2017 as well as the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court Dated 05.05.2017 in Civil Appeal No 1403314034/2017 reiterated in Civil Appeal No 14860/2017 Dated 09.05.2017 and set aside the same and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service in terms of the Act No 4/2014 Dated 27.06.2014 and consequential directions in WP No 18205/2014 and Batch Dated 07.03.2017 as well as the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court Dated 05.05.2017 in Civil Appeal No 1403314034/2017 reiterated in Civil Appeal No 14860/2017 Dated 09.05.2017 duly treating the period from the date of retirement till the date of reinstatement into service as on duty with all consequential benefits and to pass...” 2. Sri MSP Reddy, learned counsel representing Ms.S.V.Indira, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication and the Writ Petition has become infructuous. 3 3. Recording the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 18.07.2025. ASR 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.24240 of 2017 18.07.2025 Asr