Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2838 (AP)

T JAYACHANDRA v. THE STAE OF AP

WP/408/2019 · 2025-03-05

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010008562019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 408/2019 Between: T. Jayachandra ...PETITIONER AND The State Of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L V S NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 408/2019 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue an appropriate writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 5th Respondent in not extending the age of retirement of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years in terms of Provisions of Act 4 of 2014 and as per the provisions of section 115-D (2) (iv) of the APCS Act as illegal, arbitrary and viotative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the resolution No. 2 dated 10.08.2017 of the Managing Committee and resolution No. 5 dated 29.09.2017 of the General Body of the 5th Respondent Society and consequently direct the respondents to raise the age of retirement of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years to the petitioner as per the provisions of section 115-D (2) (iv) of the APCS Act by continuing the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits till the petitioner attain the age of 60 years as per the resolution No. 2 dated 01.08.2017 of the Managing Committee and resolution No.5 dated 29.09.2017 of the General Body of the 5th Respondent society…” 2. Heard Sri L.V.S Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents is in attendance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petition may be disposed of since the relief has become infructuous. 4. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed, since, the relief has become infructuous. No order as to Costs. 3 Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date:05.03.2025 UPS 4 16 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.408 of 2019 Dated.05.03.2025 UPS