APHC010461972017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY / TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 33791 OF 2017 o > Between: B.Ammani, W/o. Venkaiah Aged about 58 years, working as Extension Officer Dwakra, District Rural Development Agency, Ongole, Prakasham District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 3. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The District Collector cum Executive Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The District Rural Development Agency, rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Society For Eliminination of Rural Poverty, (SERP), Prakasham District. 6. The District Rural Development Agency, rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Society For Eliminination of Rural Poverty, (SERP), Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years is arbitrary and illegal, violative their own rules, as unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years as was being done in cases of employees working in the similar corporation. lA NO: 1 OF 2017rWPMP 42039 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till she attains the age of 60 years pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. M. SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 : SRI RAVI TEJA PADIRI, SC FOR SERP The Court made the following order: 1 ;VPHC010461972017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 33791/2017 Between: ...PETITIONER B.ammani .AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.Smt. M SHALINI represented by Sri Venkata Rama Sarma i Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.74117/MR. RAVI TEJA PADIRI 2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV (AP) 3.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (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 a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to retire the petitioner at the V. 2 age of 58 years is arbitrary and illegal violative their own rules as unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years as was being done in cases of employees working in the similar corporation to pass...” There is on record, on 02.07.2025, withdrawal letter signed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is filed, wherein it shows that the petitioner intends to withdraw the Writ Petition. 2. Today, when the matter is called, Sri Venkata Rama Sarma learned counsel representing Smt M.Shalini, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition. 3. 4. In view of the contents of the said withdrawal letter dated 02.07.2025 filed by the petitioner and considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, permission is accorded to withdraw the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT fjl^^GISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Vt SECTION OFFICER To. 1. One CC to Smt. M. Shalini, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Ravi Teja Padiri SC for SERF [OPUC] 3. Two CCS to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] tourr^ *° 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:04/07/2025 \ ANO#^ ORDER WP NO. 33791 OF 2017 17 SfP 2025 . Current bection ^ DISMISSING THE W.P AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS