APHC010910372016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 16684/2016 Between: P.thimmappa, ...PETITIONER AND The A P State Cooperative Rural Irrigation Corporation Ltd and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S GOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) 2. GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP) The Court made the following: The writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:- “....to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing proceedings bearing No.E1/RIC/Superannuation/2016/567 dt 19.05.2016, retirement Notice, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India apart from contrary to the provisions of Act 4 of 2014 dt 27.6.2014 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner upto 60 years of age and to pass ...” 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the 1st respondent i.e., Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, addressed a letter dated 10.08.2016, wherein it is stated that : “In view of the above, you are requested to continue the services of Sri P.Thimmappa, Office Sub-ordinate/Watchman till attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years, pending disposal of the W.P.No.16684 of 2016.” 3. On 26.05.2016, this Court passed an interim order directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service, in accordance with Act 4 of 2014, i.e., till he attains the age of superannuation at 60 years, by suspending the proceedings bearing No.E1/RIC/superannuation/2016/567, dated 19.05.2016, pending disposal of W.P.No.16684 of 2016. 4. The 1st respondent specifically directed the 4th respondent to comply the orders passed by this Court dated 26.05.2016 and to continue the petitioner in service upto the age of 60 years. 5. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the respondents have allowed the petitioner to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. The present grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner continued his service upto 60 years, the respondents have not paid salaries of seven months for the service rendered. 3 6. In view of the above facts and circumstance of the case, as also by taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to prefer a representation before the 1st respondent, by enclosing the relevant documents. On making such representation, the 1st respondent shall consider the same, in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months, from the date of the receipt of a copy of this Order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 28.03.2025 LSP 4 210 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 16684/2016 Date: 28.03.2025 LSP