APHC010472542017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 18387/2017 Between: Ch.chinna Siva Reddy, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K V SIMHADRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M DHANA RAJU 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to issue writ, order, direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring that the petitioners are entitled to be continued in service till they attain the age of 60 years as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.14033-14034/2017 and batch dated 5-5-2017 and further declare that the G.O.Ms.No.101, Water Resources Department, dated 23-09-2015 is continued to be in force and further declare that the G.O.Ms.No.2, Water Resources (Ser.III) Department, dated 7-1-2016 and consequential orders issued by the 4th Respondent vide Letter No.WRD-17021/2/2016-Ser.III, dated 20-1-2016, keeping the G.O.Ms.No.101, dated 23-09-2015 in abeyance is also inoperative, unsustainable, illegal and liable to be set aside and consequently, direct the respondent to continue the petitioners in service forthwith in terms of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 5-5-2017 passed in SLP (C) No.14033-14034/2017 and batch as they are similarly situated employees and also orders of this Hon’ble court in WP.MP.No.20918/2017 in WP.No.15360/2017 dt:18/05/2017 and WP.MP.No.21221/2017 in WP.No.17366/2017 dt:25/05/2017 and pass...” 2. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by Smt. Manikyaveena, learned counsel representing Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners received salaries and consequential benefits from the 3rd respondent Corporation, including their out of employment period, upto the stint of 60 years. Hence, she submits that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication and the Writ Petition has become infructuous. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, is present. 4. Recording the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. 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 21.07.2025. SRT 13 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.18387 of 2017 21.07.2025 SRT