Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9759 (AP)

A. Chinna Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary,

WP/17777/2017 · 2025-07-20

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010108522017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 17777/2017 Between: A. Chinna Rao, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Principal Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. R ANNAPURNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2. GP FOR ENERGY (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 appropriate Writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in trying to retire the petitioners at the age of 58 years instead of 60 years is contrary to the provisions of Act 4 dated 2 27th June 2014 and contrary to the Judgment of the Honble Apex Court dated 05.05.2017 illegal arbitrary and ultravires the Constitution of Indian consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate and continue the petitioners upto 60 years of age in the interest of justice and to pass...” 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is jointly submitted by Smt R.Annapurna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Y.Nagendra, learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL, that pursuant to the interim direction passed by this Court dated 06.06.2017, the petitioners’ services were extended until the age of 60, and thereafter, the petitioners retired on 31.05.2019. The department has also paid all terminal benefits to them. While making the submissions, they state that the cause in the lis does not survive for further adjudication and seeks closure of the writ petition. 3. Recording the submissions made by both the counsels, the writ petition is closed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 21.07.2025. Asr 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.17777 of 2017 21.07.2025 Asr