APHC010600952024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31464/2024 Between: 1. D VENKATA SASTRY, S/O D. VENKATA SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC CLERK, R/O D.NO. 1-58B, WATER TANK STREET, CHELIKANIVANIPOTHEPALLE VILLAGE, CH. POTHEPALLI PO WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER DCO, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, (C.E.O)., ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT. 4. THE G KOTHAPALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, G.KOTHAPALLI, DWARAKATIRUMALA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to issuance of an appropriate Writ, Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 to 4 officials in preventing the petitioner to be 2 in service up to age of 62 years, without enhancing the age of retirement of petitioner from 60 to 62 years as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice, violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and Rules made therein, consequently direct the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner till he attains the age of 62 years i.e. till 31.12.2026 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner till he attains the age of 62 years in 4th Respondent society i.e. till 31.12.2026, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D V SASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order: Heard Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Venkata Ananda Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri S.Vijay Kumar, learned Standing counsel for respondents 3 and 4. 2. Petitioner, Clerk, working in 4th respondent society filed the above writ petition to declare the action of respondents 2 to 4 in preventing him to discharge duties till the age of 62 years, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the 4th respondent society on 12.03.1988 and has been discharging his duties. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022, enhancing the age of superannuation to employees from 60 to 62 years. The 3 4th respondent, an Autonomous Body, is not extending the age of superannuation to the petitioner. 4. At the hearing, when the Court posed a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any resolution had been passed by the 4th respondent enhancing the age of superannuation to its employees or adopting the aforementioned G.O. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that neither a resolution was passed by the 4th respondent enhancing the age of superannuation to its employees nor the G.O. was adopted. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on the other hand would submit that even the resolution, if any, needs to be registered under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. 7. Thus, as seen from the material available on record except making a representation dated 09.10.2024 (Ex.P1), nothing is placed before this Court regarding the resolution and registration of the resolution. In the absence of any substantial material papers regarding the entitlement of the petitioner for continuation in service beyond 60 years, this Court cannot find fault with the authorities' decision. The legal right, if any, of the petitioner, has not been infringed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, which is sine qua non. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 02.01.2025 SNI 4 250 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.31464 OF 2024 Dated: 02.01.2025 SNI