Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4954 (AP)

Ch. Siva Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh.

WP/31806/2017 · 2025-07-10

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010040122017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 31806/2017 Between: Ch. Siva Prasad ...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 Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not acting upon the amended provisions of G.O.Ms.No.102 Finance and planning HR IVFR Department dated 27.06.2017 as amended in G.O.Ms.No.138 Finance HR IVFR Department dated 08.08.2017 issued by the 1st 2 respondent which was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court of India dated 09.08.2017 in S L P P Nos 136263 of 2017 and 1403334 of 2017 and batch as illegal arbitrary unjust being violative of Arts 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to extend the Provisions of Act 4 of 2014 by raising the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years to the petitioner and also to continue the petitioner in service with all incidental and consequential benefits till the petitioner attain the age of 60 years and to pass...” 2. Sri L.V.S.Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for further adjudication and the Writ Petition has become infructuous. 3. Recording the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 11.07.2025. ASR 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.31806 of 2017 11.07.2025 ASR