Kommara Pushpanandam v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
WP/19070/2017 · 2025-07-24
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3175 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3175 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010013292017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 19070/2017 Between: Kommara Pushpanandam and another ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
2. G. RATHNA KUMAR (SC FOR APSCCFC) The court made the following ORDER:-
The writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus, praying the following main relief:-
“……declaring the action of the respondents in relieving the petitioners at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years is contrary to the provisions of Act No.4 dated 27th June, 2014, resolution, contrary to the Judgment of the Honble Apex Court dated 05.05.2017 illegal, arbitrary and ultravires to the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners’ service upto 60 years of age by setting aside the said impugned notices in the interest of justice and to pass……”
2
2. The conspectus of the writ petition is that the petitioners are seeking continuation of their service in the respondent Corporation upto the superannuation age of 60 years.
3. At the time of considering the matter, Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma, learned counsel representing Smt. M. Shalini, learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Sri G. Rathna Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation, jointly submit that consequent to the interim orders dated 13.06.2017 granted by this Court, the petitioners services were extended from 58 years to 60 years and subsequently, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 retired from service on 31.10.2018 and 30.04.2019 respectively. Making the said submission, they state that the writ petition renders infructuous.
4. Recording the submission made by both the counsel, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 25.07.2025 GVK
3
208
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION No.19070 of 2017
Date: 25.07.2025
GVK