A ANANDA RAO, SRIKAKULAM DIST. v. THE STATE OF A.P.,AGRE.&COOP.,AMARAVATHI,& 4 OTRS.
WP/32015/2017 · 2025-07-10
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35683 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35683 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010571582017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 32015/2017 Between: A Ananda Rao, Srikakulam Dist. ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Agre Coop Amaravathi 4 Otrs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. L V S NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP)
2. DEEPAK MISRA
3. SRINIVAS BASAVA 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 an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th respondent in
2
not acting upon the amended provisions of G.O.Ms. No.102 Finance and PlanningHR IVFR Department dated 27.06.2017 as amended in G.O.Ms.No.138 Finance HR IVFR Department dated 08.08.2017 issued by the 1g respondent which was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court on India dated 09082017 in S L P Nos 13623 of 2017 and 1403334 of 2017 and batch and also the orders of the 4th respondent dated 03.09.2017 as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the order dated 03.09.2017 and direct the respondents to extend the Provisions of Act 4 of 2014 by raising the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years to the petitioner and also to continue the petitioner in service with all incidental and consequential benefits till the petitioner attain the age of 60 years and to pass...”
2. Sri L.V.S.Nagaraju, 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 for 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
11.07.2025. ASR
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
WRIT PETITION NO.32015 of 2017
11.07.2025
ASR