Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34364 (AP)

K. Ch. Surya Narayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/21226/2017 · 2025-07-20

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010528722017 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: 21226/2017 Between: K. Ch. Surya Narayana ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SC FOR APSTEP 2. GP FOR YOUTH SERVICES (AP) The Court made the following ORDER: The writ petition is filed challenging the Retirement Notice dated 12.06.2017 issued by the respondents to the petitioner to retire from service on attaining superannuation age of 58 years i.e., on 31.06.2017 and for a consequential direction to respondents to continue the service of the petitioner, till he attain the superannuation age of 60 years. 2. Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma, learned counsel representing Smt.M.Shalini, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that as the writ petition was instituted long back, presently, the petitioner is not in contact with them. 3. Sri Abdul Rasheed, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Youth Services, submits that the writ petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2017 itself and in view of efflux of time, the writ petition becomes infructuous. 4. Apparently, there are no interim orders granted in favour of the petitioner as on today. 5. In fact, the writ petition was instituted way back in the year 2017, when the petitioner was aged about 58 years. More than eight years have elapsed from the date of institution of the lis. Since the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 34 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.21226 of 2017 Date: 21.07.2025 GVK