APHC010642722017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 30240/2017 Between: Sri Chaganti Narayana Reddy, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SYED ARIF BASHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI 2. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) 3. RAVI KUMAR C The court made the following ORDER:- The writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus, praying the following main relief:- “……declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in not considering the representations dated 10.08.2017 and 16.08.2017 submitted by the petitioners seeking reinstatement in service until they attain the age of 60 years in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 138, dated 08.08.2017, which was issued pursuant to the Orders dated 05.05.2017, 31.07.2017 and 09.08.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 13623/2017 and batch, as well as the Proceedings No. HRD/F.No.Ret.58-60/2017, dated 29.06.2017 passed by the 4th respondent Bank in so far as it is repugnant to G.O. Ms. 2 No. 138, dated 08.08.2017 and the Orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 05.05.2017, 31.07.2017 and 09.08.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, violative of principles of natural justice and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to reinstate the petitioners in service until they attain the age of 60 years by setting aside the Proceedings No. HRD/F.No.Ret.58- 60/2017 dated 29.06.2017 passed by the 4th respondent Bank in so far as the same is repugnant to the G.O.Ms. No. 138, dated 08.08.2017 and the Orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 05.05.2017, 31.07.2017 and 09.08.2017 in the interests of justice and pass……” 2. The conspectus of the present lis is that the petitioners are seeking extension of their superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years in the respondent’s Corporation. 3. When the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, Smt. Phani Sri, learned counsel representing Sri C. Ravi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4- Corporation, submits that the petitioners retired from service on 30.04.2016 itself and in view of efflux of time, the writ petition becomes infructuous. 5. Apparently, the writ petition was instituted way back in the year 2017, when the petitioners were aged about 59 years. More than eight years have elapsed from the date of institution of the lis. Since the petitioners would have already attained age of 60 years by 2018, the relief sought in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. 6. In these circumstances and in the absence of any appearance from the petitioners’ side, this Court is of the view that merely keeping the writ petition 3 pending would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. 7. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners 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: 25.07.2025 GVK 4 159 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.30240 of 2017 Date: 25.07.2025 GVK