APHC010078862017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 15826/2017 Between: K. Sham Sunder Prasad, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep Prl Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. HANUMANTHA RAO BACHINA 2. GP FOR TOURISM(AP) 3. A K NARASIMHA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following main relief:- “……to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing notice of retirement vide “Notice of Retirement” vide No.APTDC/Admn/P1/5/2015 dated 11.01.2017 in fixing date of retirement from service as 31.07.2017 by considering age of retirement as 58 years as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014 of the 1st respondent and consequently by setting aside the “Notice of Retirement” vide No.APTDC/Admn/P1/5/2015 dated 11.01.2017 direct the respondent No.1 to continue the petitioner in service till the age of 60 years and to pass……” 2. The sum and substance of the writ petition is that the petitioner is seeking extension of his services from 58 years to 60 years. 3. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 4. On 06.06.2017, this Court passed an Interim Order, directing the respondents to continue the petitioner up to the age of 60 years. 5. Sri E.Satheesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. Tourism Development and Corporation Limited appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that consequent to the interim direction of this Court dated 06.06.2017, the petitioner was reinstated into service and his services were extended up to the age of 60 years. Thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years, the petitioner retired from service in the year 2019 itself. 6. In these circumstances and in view of the fact that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, by taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, the cause in the lis does not survive for further adjudication and the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 25.07.2025 SRT 199 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.15826 of 2017 Date: 25.07.2025 SRT