Uppada Shanmukha Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/20814/2017 · 2025-07-10
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24399 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24399 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010344562017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 20814/2017 Between: Uppada Shanmukha Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. L V S NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M RAVINDRANATH REDDY
2. M RAVINDRANATH REDDY(SC FOR APSHC)
3. GP FOR HOUSING (AP) 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 an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing Orders in Rc.No.463/2014/EE/G dated 30.03.2017 for
2
retirement of the petitioner by not extending the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years in terms of Provisions of Act 4 of 2014 as illegal arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the orders of the Honble Supreme Court in S L P No 14033-14034 of 2017 and batch dated 05052017 and set aside the Orders in Rc.No.463/2014/EE/G dated 30.03.2017 and consequently direct the respondents to raise the age of retirement of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years in terms of the Provisions of Act 4 of 2014 by reinstating and continuing the petitioner in service beyond 31.03.2017 with all incidental and consequential benefits till the petitioner attain the age of 60 years and to pass...”
2. Sri L.V.S.Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner 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. Recording the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, 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
11.07.2025. ASR
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO.20814 of 2017
11.07.2025
ASR