1 APHC010047962017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 21066/2017 Between: Mohd. Abdul Rasheed & Ano. and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND M D Apswc Hyd 2 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K JAYASREE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COOPERATION (AP) 2. M RAVINDRANATH REDDY(SC FOR APSHC) 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 Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents directing the petitioners to retire on attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years by 30th June 2016 as against the enhanced age limit of 60 years for superannuation without implementing the 2 provisions of A P Public Employment Regulation of Age of Superannuation Amendment Act 2014 Act 4 of 2014 as highly illegal and arbitrary capricious discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and against the service rules of A P State Warehousing Corporation Employees Service Regulations and not only opposed to principles of natural justice but also to legitimate expectation and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in service till attaining the age of 60 years and to pass...” 2. The sum and substance in the present lis is that the petitioners are seeking continuation of their service upto the age of 60 years. 3. On 11.07.2025, there was no representation for the petitioners. Today also, none appeared for the petitioners despite the matter being posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. 4. Sri AVG Madhava Rao, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.W.C., submits that the writ petitioners retired from the service on 30.06.2017. Therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. 5. As seen from the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioners were aged about 58 years at the time of filing the writ petition. In fact, the petitioners sought for continuation of their services upto the age of 60 years. However, due to efflux of time, petitioners would have already crossed 65 years as on today and the prayer sought by the petitioners would not survive for consideration. 3 6. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that merely keeping the writ petition pending would yield no useful purpose. Therefore, the writ petition is closed. 7. However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from taking recourse to law as permissible, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 18.07.2025. Asr 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.21066 of 2017 18.07.2025 Asr