V.Venkateswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal
WP/7086/2017 · 2025-07-20
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 33584 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 33584 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010506082017
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: 7086/2017 Between: V. Venkateswara Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR YOUTH SERVICES (AP) The Court made the following ORDER:
The writ petition is filed challenging the Retirement Notice dated 14.10.2016 issued by the respondents to the petitioners to retire from service on attaining superannuation age of 58 years i.e., on 31.03.2017 and for a consequential direction to respondents to continue the service of the petitioners, till they attain the superannuation age of 60 years.
2. Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma, learned counsel representing Smt.M.Shalini, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that as the writ
2
petition was instituted long back, presently, the petitioners are not in contact with them.
3. Sri Abdul Rasheed, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Youth Services, submits that the writ petitioners retired from service on 31.03.2017 itself and in view of efflux of time, the writ petition becomes infructuous.
4. Apparently, there are no interim orders granted by this Court as on today in favour of the petitioners.
5. In fact, the writ petition was instituted way back in the year 2017, when the petitioners were aged about 58 years. More than eight years have elapsed from the date of institution of the lis. Since the petitioners would have already attained age of 60 years by 2019, the relief sought in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication.
6. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that merely keeping the writ petition pending would serve no useful purpose. Hence, the writ petition is closed.
7. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from taking recourse to law as permissible, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 21.07.2025 GVK
3
34
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION No.7086 of 2017
Date: 21.07.2025
GVK