Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34208 (AP)

K.Nagaiah (ID No.613) v. The State of A.P.Rep.by its Principal Secretary,

WP/18215/2017 · 2025-07-20

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010525162017 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: 18215/2017 Between: K.nagaiah (id No.613) ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Rep By Its Principal Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GANDURI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY (AP) 2. JAGARLAMUDI KOTESWARI DEVI 3. V R REDDY KOVVURI (SC FOR APCPDCL) 4. N SIVA REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) 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 WRIT of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents retiring me from service on 31.05.2017 at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years 2 as illegal arbitrary contrary to the provisions of Act 4/2014 dated 27.06.2014 and contrary to the Judgment of the Honourable Apex court dated 5.5.2017 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate and continue the petitioner upto 60 years of age and to pass...” 2. The sum and substance in the present lis is that the petitioner is seeking continuation of his service upto the age of 60 years. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL would submit that pursuant to the interim direction passed by this Court dated 07.06.2017, the petitioner’s service was extended until the age of 60, and thereafter, the petitioner retired on 31.05.2019. The department has also paid all terminal benefits to him. Therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned Standing counsel for APEPDCL, no further orders are required in the Writ Petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is closed. 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. Asr 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.18215 of 2017 21.07.2025 Asr