'444 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 20507 OF 2016 AMARAV o IX ■D Oil r-rjJ >9 —S'-- K'J Between: P.Radhakrishna Murthy, S/o. Late Penchalaiah, Aged : 58 years, Occ; Record Assistant, R/o.Gonupalli (V), Ravuru (M), S.P.S.R.Nellore (Dist.) Sri Penusila Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam Penchalakona, Rapuru (M) S.P.S.R.Nellore (Dt) A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments-IV) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments, Department, Andhra Pradesh Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. 3. Sri Penusila Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Penchalakona, Rapuru (M), S.P.S.R.Nellore (Dt) A.P. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a) declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in may issuing the notice in Rc.No.38/ 2015, dt.31.12.2015 proposing to retire the petitioner on 30.06.2016 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Act 4/2014 as published in Government Gazette on 27.06.2014 and set- aside the same, with a consequential direction directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till he completes the age of 60 years with all consequential service benefits b) by further directing the Respondents nos. 1 & 2 to extend the benefits of enhancement of retirement age upto 60 years in terms of act 4/2014 dt. 27.06.2014 to the petitioner by duly amending Rule 9 of Office Holders & Servants Rules, 2000 issued in G.O.Ms.No.888 dt. 08.12.2000. i.A. NO: 1 OF 2016rWPMP. NO: 25150 OF 20161 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 suspend the impugned notice issued by the 3rd Respondent Rc.No.38/2015, dt. 31.12.2015 in proposing to retire the petitioner on 30.06.2016 with a further direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60 years with all consequential service benefits pending disposal of the Writ Petition pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T S RAYALU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A SREEKANTH REDDY (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS) The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010020582016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] .m 11 FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 20507/2016 Between: P.radhakrishna Murthy ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal ...RESPONDENT(S) Secretary and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.T S RAYALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) 2.A SREEKANTH REDDY(SC FOR ENDOW RS) 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 a declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing the notice in Rc. No.38/2015 dt.31.12.2015 proposing to s 2 retire the petitioner on 30.06.2016 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Act 4/2014 as published in Government Gazette on 27.06.2014 and set-aside the same with a consequential direction directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in sen/ice till he completes the age of 60 years with all consequential service benefits b) by further directing the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to extend the benefits of enhancement of retirement age upto 60 years in terms of act 4/2014 dt.27.05.2014 to the petitioner by duly amending Rule 9 to Office Holders & Servants Rules, 2000 issued in G.O.Ms.No. 888 dt.08.12.2000 and to pass...” 2. Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that 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. Sd/-B.PRASADA RA0 ASSISTANT REGISTR;^R section officer //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to Sri T S Rayalu, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] [OPUcf ^ (SC for Endowments) Advocate Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. TF HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 ORDER WP.No.20507 of 2016 DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS