Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39714 (AP)

Dimili Thrinadha Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/47973/2018 · 2025-03-07

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010992272018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 47973/2018 Between: Dimili Thrinadha Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L V S NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 47973/2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not rising the age of retirement of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years as per the provisions of section 115-D (2) (iv) of the APCS Act and also as per Government Memo No. 5825 /Coop.III2014-7 dated 23.05.2015 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to rise the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 58 year to 60 years as per the provisions of section 115- D (2) (iv) of the APCS Act and as per Government Memo No. 5825 /Coop.III2014-7 dated 23.05.2015 to the petitioner and continue the petitioner till the petitioner attain the age of 60 years in the 3rd respondent society and to pass …” 2. Heard Sri L.V.S.Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation for the respondents is in attendance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the relief has become infructuous and no further orders are required in this matter. 4. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed, since, the relief has become infructuous. No order as to Costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date:07.03.2025 UPS 3 26 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.47973 of 2018 Dated.07.03.2025 UPS