Dismissed

Ch. Siva Koteswara Rao, Guntur Dist. v. Prl. Secy., Agrl. and Coop. Dept. and 2 Ors.

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jul 2022WP/20422/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged retirement order and interim order allowing continued service until July 31, 2016. Court noted bank resolution refused age enhancement, citing similar dismissal in another petition in WP.No.16836 of 2016. Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

No relief; Writ Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Ch. Siva Koteswara Rao, Guntur Dist… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 20422 of 2016

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Heard Sri C. S. N. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶5

The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 05.05.2016 by which he was informed that he would be retiring from services of the 3^rd respondent Bank, namely, the Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, on the afternoon of 30.06.2016 on completion of 58 years of age by 16.06.2016 as his date of birth is 16.06.1958 as per the Service Register.

¶6

This Court by interim order dated 29.06.2016, provided as

¶7

under:

¶8

“In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the respondents to take a decision with regard to the age of superannuation taking into consideration the provisions of Section 115-D(2)(iv) of the Act and also the Memos of the Government issued from time to time, within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioners, who are in service either by virtue of interim orders or otherwise shall be allowed to continue in service till 31.07.2016, pending decision by the respective organizations.”

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents filed application to vacate the interim order dated 29.06.2016 which is pending. The respondents, however, did not permit the petitioner to continue and he was retired from service on 30.06.2016.

¶10

It is not in dispute that the 3^rd respondent-the Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Limited passed resolution No.100, dated 29.07.2016 not to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years to its employees.

¶11

RNT, J WP No.20422 of 2016

¶12

¶13

Smt. K.N.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondents, has submitted a letter dated 18.07.2022 to the Chairman, Lok Adalat, a copy of which is placed on record, giving particulars of the cases which have become infructuous. The petitioner’s case finds place at Sl.No.19 thereof.

¶14

In WP.No.16836 of 2016, K. Venkat Rao v. The State of A.P and 2 ors, taking into account the resolution No.100, dated 29.07.2016 of the 3^rd respondent, not to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years to its employees, this Court dismissed the petition for same prayer, vide order dated 27.12.2016.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has no right to continue up to the age of 60 years and has rightly been retired at the age of 58 years as per the age of superannuation under the relevant legal provisions.

¶16

Though the interim order was granted, but the respondents did not permit the petitioner to join and consequently, no further orders are required with respect to salary etc., for the period after the petitioner attained the age of 58 years up to 60 years.

¶17

The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶18

No order as to costs.

¶19

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

¶20

consequence.

¶21

_______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

¶22

Date: 22.07.2022 Dsr

Ch. Siva Koteswara Rao, Guntur Dist. v. Prl. Secy., Agrl. and Coop. Dept. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Siva Koteswara Rao, Guntur Dist. v. Prl. Secy., Agrl. and Coop. Dept. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Viswanath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.v.Ramachandra Vs A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Rep. by is

T. Sri Rama Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

G.v.P.P.Rama Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Venkateswar Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Subhani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh