1 APHC010692562017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 18288/2017 Between: A V Rambabu ...PETITIONER AND State Of Ap 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH C KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G SEENA KUMAR (SC FOR APEWIDC AND RVM SSA 2. GP FOR ENERGY (AP) 3. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL 4. V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL) 5. JAGARLAMUDI KOTESWARI DEVI The Court Made the Following Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: 2 “to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years by issuing the Memo No AAO/ERO/TOWNII/NLR/JAO/SA PRS/DNO 949/17 dt 31.05.2017 by the 4th respondent is arbitrary illegal contrary to the provisions of Act 4 dt.27.06.2014 and contrary to the judgement of the Honble Apex Court dt 05.05.2017 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate and continue the petitioner upto 60 years of age and further set aside the Memo No AAO/ERO/TOWNII/NLR/JAO/SA PRS/DNO 949/17 dt 31.05.2017 of the 4th respondent and to pass...” 2. The sum and substance in the present lis is that the petitioner is seeking continuation of his service upto the age of 60 years. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Sri Kota Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Chakravarthi, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL would submit that the petitioner had retired upon attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 58 years, initially. However, the petitioner was reinstated into duty as per the Government Order and continued in service until the age of 60 years, i.e., 31.05.2019. The department has also paid all terminal benefits to him. Therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 5. In view of the submissions made on behalf of learned standing counsel for APSPDCL, no further orders are required in the Writ Petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 21.07.2025. Asr 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.18288 of 2017 21.07.2025 Asr