Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35656 (AP)

Smt. M.Krishnaveni, v. The Special Chief Secretary to Govt., YAT & C(YS)

WP/18447/2017 · 2025-07-20

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010572832017 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: 18447/2017 Between: Smt. M.krishnaveni, ...PETITIONER AND The Special Chief Secretary To Govt Yat Cys and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K RAMANUJA CHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR YOUTH SERVICES(AP) 2. SC FOR APSTEP The Court made the following ORDER: The writ petition is filed challenging the Retirement Notices dated 23.01.2017 and 31.05.2017 issued by the respondents to the petitioner to retire from service on attaining superannuation age of 58 years i.e., on 31.05.2017 and for a consequential direction to respondents to continue the service of the petitioner, till he attains the superannuation age of 60 years. 2. When the matter is called today, there is no representation for the petitioner. 2 3. On the other hand, Sri Abdul Rasheed, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Youth Services, submits that the writ petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2017 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 3 82 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.18447 of 2017 Date: 21.07.2025 GVK