1 APHC010697442017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 26832 OF 2017 Between: 1. K. Nagaratnamachary, S/o Late Munaiah, Aged 59 years, Record Assistant, District Scheduled Castes Service Co.op. Society, Kadapa. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velgampudi, Amaravathi, Guntur. 2. Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes Co.op. Finance Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. 3. District Collector/Chairman, District Scheduled Castes Service Co.op. Society Ltd., Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. 4. The Executive Director, District Scheduled Castes Service Co.op. Society Ltd., Kadapa, Y.S.R. Kadapa District ...Respondents 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 issue an appropriate a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in relieving the Petitioner at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to provisions of Act 4 of 2014, resolution and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 2 05-05-2017 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service till he attains the age of superannuation 60 years with continuity of service, and consequential all benefits as was done in all other similarly placed persons by virtue of the interim directions of this Hon'ble Court Counsel for the Petitioner: T V S KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) Counsel for the Respondents: GANDRALA RATHNA KUMAR, SC For APSCCFC LTD The Court made the following order: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.26832 of 2017 ORDER: The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following main relief: “to issue an appropriate a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in relieving the Petitioner at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to provisions of Act 4 of 2014, resolution and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 05-05-2017 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service till he attains the age of superannuation 60 years with continuity of service, and consequential all benefits as was done in all other similarly placed persons by virtue of the interim directions of this Hon'ble Court and to pass ….” 2. The sum and substance of the writ petition is that the petitioner is seeking to continue his services up to the age of 60 years in the respondents Corporation. 3. This Court on 22.08.2017 passed the following interim order: “It is stated that in similar circumstances, this Court granted interim orders dated 07.06.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.21691 of 2017 in W.P.No.17764 of 2017. It is represented by learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 that the petitioner is going to be continued up to 60 years. In view of the same, there shall be interim direction as prayed for.” 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri D.Subba Rao, learned counsel representing Sri T.V.S.Kumar, learned counsel for the 4 petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents Corporation Sri Gandrala Rathna Kumar, jointly submitted that by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner’s services were extended up to 60 years and also he retired from service on 31.01.2019. To that effect, the learned Standing Counsel submitted the proceedings dated in Rc.No.989/AEO/Accounts/2018, dated 08.07.2025, which is made as part of the record. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner expired on 04.12.2021. 5. Basing upon the said submission, this Court is of the view that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 6. Hence, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date: 11.07.2025 Rns 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.26832 of 2017 Date:11.07.2025 Rns