Dismissed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jul 2022WP/24248/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding superannuation age, the High Court held that the petitioner has no right to serve up to age 60 based on the respondent society's resolution fixing superannuation at 58 years and a prior order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to take retirement at age 58; no orders on salary for period between 58 and 60 years required to be passed.

G.v.P.P.Rama Rao Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI WRIT PETITION No.24248 OF 2016

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing superannuation notice dated 03.06.2015 and 10.08.2015, 22.08.2015 and 10.08.2015 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

On 22.07.2016, while admitting the writ petition, this Court granted interim order directing 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 A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and also the Memos of the Government issued from time to time on or before 31.07.2016.

¶5

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.

¶6

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.17 thereof.

¶7

In WP.No.16836 of 2016, K. Venkat Rao v. The State of A.P and 2 others, 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.

¶8

¶9

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.

¶10

Though the interim order was granted, but the respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner and did not permit the petitioner to join and consequently, no further orders are required with respect to salary etc., for the period after the

¶11

petitioner attained the age of 58 years up to 60 years.

¶12

The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶13

No order as to costs.

¶14

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

¶15

consequence.

¶16

________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

¶17

Date: 22.07.2022 Gk

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.24248 OF 2016

¶21

Date:22.07.2022.

¶22

Gk.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

G.Venkateswar Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Subhani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh