Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25370 (AP)

M. NAGAMALLESWARA RAO, GUNTUR DIST.,A.P., & 3 OTRS. v. THE STATE OF A.P.,AGRE.,GUNTUR DIST.,& 3 OTRS.

WP/13579/2017 · 2026-01-07

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010555412017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 13579/2017 Between: M. Nagamalleswara Rao, Guntur Dist.,a.p., & 3 Otrs. and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of A P Agre Guntur Dist 3 Otrs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SIVA S LANKA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI 2. K N VIJAYA LAXMI 3. 4. GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP) 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 13579 of 2017 Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to issue an order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4, in not taking any decision with regard to payment of salary and other allowances to the petitioners on par with the other employees continued in service beyond 58 years by virtue of the interim orders of this Hon'ble Court in their favour till a decision has been taken by the 461 respondent-Board dated 29.7.2016, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory, unconstitutional, being in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, binding principles of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4, to pay the salary with all consequential benefits on par with the employees continued in service, beyond 58 years, as per the interim orders passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 29.6.2016 in W.P. No. 28407 of 2015.” 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the subsequent events taken place in the lis, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and the writ petition has become infructuous. 3 3. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 08.01.2026. Asr 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.13579 of 2017 08.01.2026 Asr