APHC010040612016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 14956/2016 Between: 1. M.M.M. RAMAIAH,, S/O. VENKATA PANDU RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, KRISHNA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., KRISHNA DISTRICT 2. K. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O. VISWESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST.MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, KRISHNA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD 2. COMMISSIONER FOR CO OPERATION AND REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, , GRUHAKALPA, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD 3. THE KRISHNA DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK, REP., BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 18577 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A RAJENDRA BABU 2. GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP) The court made the following ORDER:- The writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus, praying the following main relief:- “……declaring the action of the respondents in issuing retirement notice of the petitioners is contrary to Act 4 of 2014 dated 27-06-2014 and also in violation of Proceedings dated 10- 08-2015, 12-08-2015 and 22-08-2015 arbitrary and illegal and set aside the same consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service in view of the Proceedings dated 10-08- 2015, 12-08-2025 and 22-08-2015 in the interest of justice and to pass……” 2. The conspectus of the writ petition is that the petitioners are seeking continuation of their service in the respondent's Bank up to the superannuation age of 60 years. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri P. Venkata Rama Sarma, learned counsel representing Smt. M. Shalini, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kireeti, learned counsel representing Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank jointly submit that the petitioners were retired on 31.05.2016. Consequently, the 3rd respondent- Bank has paid retiremental benefits to the petitioners on 10.10.2016 and on 30.09.2016 respectively. According to them, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 3 4. In view of the above said submissions made by the respective counsels, the writ petition is closed. 5. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 01.09.2025 SCH 4 194 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.14956 of 2016 Date: 01.09.2025 SCH