1 APHC010335062017 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: 20902/2017 Between: T. Bhagananda Rao, Visakhapatnam Dist ...PETITIONER AND Md Apswc Hyderabad 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K JAYASREE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M RAVINDRANATH REDDY(SC FOR APSHC) 2. GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP) 3. K SATYA SRINIVASA RAO(SC FOR APSWC) 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 Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents directing the petitioner to retire on attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years by 30th 2 June 2016 as against the provisions of A P Public Employment Regulation of Age of Superannuation Amendment Act 2014 Act 4 of 2014 as highly illegal and arbitrary capricious discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against the service rules of A.P. State Warehousing Corporation Employees Service Regulations and not only opposed to principles of natural justice but also to legitimate expectation and consequently direct the Respondents to continue in service till attaining the age of 60 years and to pass...” 2. The sum and substance in the present lis is that the petitioner is seeking continuation of his service upto the age of 60 years. 3. On 11.07.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner. Today also, none appeared for the petitioner despite the matter being posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. 4. Sri AVG Madhava Rao, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.W.C., submits that the writ petitioner retired from the service on 30.06.2017. Therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 5. As seen from the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner was aged about 58 years at the time of filing the writ petition. In fact, the petitioner sought for continuation of his services upto the age of 60 years. However, due to efflux of time, petitioner would have already crossed 65 years as on today and the prayer sought by the petitioner would not survive for consideration. 6. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that merely keeping the writ petition pending would yield no useful purpose. Therefore, the writ petition is closed. 3 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 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.20902 of 2017 18.07.2025 Asr