Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35387 (AP)

Putnam Ganganna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/26701/2018 · 2025-03-27

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010563492018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 26701/2018 Between: 1. PUTNAM GANGANNA, S/O. MUNNAIAH. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. OCC .ACCOUNTANT. ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE COOP. SOCIETY LTD.. THALLU PRODUTTUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. R O. D.NO.3/.1027/9-7 GANNEVARIPALLI COLONY, TADIPATRI POST. ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION (COOP-ILL) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT. VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE KADAPA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. R.S.ROAD, KADAPA. YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 3. ANDHRA PRAGATHI FARMERS SERVICE COOP SOCIETY LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, FHALLU PRODUTTUR. KONDAPUR MANDAL. YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 4. THE DIVISIONAL COOPERATIVE OFFICER, PRODUTTUR. YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PALEM LAKSHMI PRIYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: 2 “.... a writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings in RC.No.830/2018 dated 20.07.2018 passed by 4th Respondent without authority and jurisdiction and in rejecting the request of the Petitioner to enhance the age of the Petitioner from 58 years to 60 years as per the general body resolution passed by the 3rd Respondent dated 13.10.2017 based on the memo.No.5825/Coop.III/2014-7, dated 23.05.2015 issued by the 1st Respondent to enhance the age of the employees of the 3rd Respondent from 58 years to 60 years as illegal and arbitrary and consequently declare that the Petitioner is entitled to continue upto 60 years on par with L.Siva Kumar Reddy, Managing Director of the 3rd Respondent.” 2. None represented for the Petitioner. 3. As can be seen from the interim order passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2018, dated 31.07.2018, Respondent-Society is directed to extend the age of superannuation of the Petitioner upto 60 years. 4. Sri A.Krishna Kishore, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation would submit that they have complied with the interim order passed by this Court and hence, no further orders are required in this matter as the Petitioner has already retired from service. 5. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:27.03.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.26701 of 2018 Dt.27.03.2025 Dinesh