B NAGI REDDY v. APSAIDCLTD., REP. BY VC & MD DEPT., HYD., & 2 OTHERS,
WP/44367/2016 · 2025-07-17
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35662 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35662 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010572882016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 44367/2016 Between: B Nagi Reddy ...PETITIONER AND Apsaidcltd Rep By Vc Md Dept Hyd 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CH B R P SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. BANDA PRASADA RAO(SC FOR TSAIDC)
2. GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP) 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 appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No 1 in issuing notice of retirement vide No Ref.No.Pers/EPF/1842/94 dt.11.01.2016 in fixing date of retirement from service
2
as 31.12.2016 by considering age of retirement as 58 years as arbitrary illegal unconstitutional and violative of G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014 of the 3rd respondent and as adopted by 1St respondent through its board resolution passed in its 261st meeting dated 18.05.2015 and consequently by setting aside the notice of retirement vide Ref.No.PerslEPF/1842/94 dt. 11.01.2016 direct the respondent No.1 to continue the petitioner in service till the age of 60 years and to pass...”
2. Sri Gummadavalli Vamsi, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.B.R.P.Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication and the Writ Petition has become infructuous.
3. Recording the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no orders as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J
18.07.2025. Asr
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO.44367 of 2016
18.07.2025
Asr