MRK,J W.P.No.40415 of 2017 APHC010977712017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 40415/2017 Between: 1. R.VENKATESWAR RAO, S/O R.GOPALA KRISHNA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 306, B BLOCK, PARADISE APARTMENTS, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 530013. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE [HR.IV.FR] DEPARTMENT, AT A P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. A P STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS, D.NO. 10-152/1, SRI SAI TOWERS, ASHOK NAGAR, BESIDE SIRI COMPANY, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA, 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of 2nd Respondent in not extending the benefits of G 0 Ms No. 102 dated 27.6.2017 as amended by G.O. Ms. No. 138 dated 8.8.2017 issued by first respondent to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to forthwith consider the representation of the petitioner dt 30.10.2017 and grant salary and all consequential benefits to the petitioner for the period from 1.6.2015 to MRK,J W.P.No.40415 of 2017 31.5.2017 to the petitioner by taking into consideration G 0 Ms No. 102 dated 27.6.2017 and G.O.Ms.No. 138 dated 8.8.2017 issued by first respondent and in the light of the order dated 9.8.2017 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal [C] No. 13623 of 2017 and batch ; Award costs and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 50149 OF 2017 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 to issue interim directions to the 2nd Respondent to forthwith consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.10.2017 and grant salary and all consequential benefits to the petitioner for the period from 1.6.2015 to 31.5.2017, pending disposal of W P No. of 2015 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K GANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) MRK,J W.P.No.40415 of 2017 The Court made the following ORDER: The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following prayer: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Direction, declaring the action of 2nd Respondent in not extending the benefits of G.0.Ms No. 102 dated 27.06.2017 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.138 dated 8.8.2017 issued by first respondent to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and to consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to forthwith consider the representation of the petitioner dt 30.10.2017 and grant salary and all consequential benefits to the petitioner for the period from 1.6.2015 to 31.5.2017 to the petitioner by taking into consideration G 0 Ms No. 102 dated 27.6.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.138 dated 8.8.2017 issued by first respondent and in the light of the order dated 9.8.2017 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal [C] No. 13623 of 2017 and batch…” 2. Heard Sri K.Gani Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation for the 2nd respondent Corporation on 12.12.2025 and today also. 3. The brief case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as an Asst.Gr.III in the 2nd respondent Corporation in the year 1982. Thereafter, he was promoted as Asst.Gr.II in the year 2006 and Asst.Gr.I in the year 2011. On 31.05.2015, on attaining the age of 58 years, he was retired from the service but as the Government had already issued orders enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years prior to the retirement of the petitioner and as the petitioner was retired at the age of 58 years, he was MRK,J W.P.No.40415 of 2017 entitled to all the consequential benefits up to the age of 60 years i.e., 31.05.2017. 4. In such circumstances, the petitioner had made a representation dated 30.10.2017 to the 2nd respondent, but the same was not disposed by the 2nd respondent. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner may be considered by the 2nd respondent in accordance with law coupled with the Hon’ble Apex Court orders in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.13623 of 2017 & Batch. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction. The 2nd respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 30.10.2017 in accordance with law within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the order to the petitioner. 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: 19.12.2025 Dvs MRK,J W.P.No.40415 of 2017 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM 196 WRIT PETITION No.40415 of 2017 Date: 19.12.2025 Dvs