Dismissed

Shaik Subhani, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jul 2022WP/30562/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the respondents' failure to enhance the age of superannuation for bank employees. Relying on a prior resolution and a previous judgment, the court held the petitioner was correctly retired at 58 years and no further salary was due.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed and no orders as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Shaik Subhani, Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI WRIT PETITION No.30562 OF 2017

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not acting upon the amended provisions of G.O.Ms.No.102, Finance and Planning (HR.IV-FR) Department, dated 27.06.2017, as amended inG.O.Ms.No.138, Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department, dated 8.8.2017, issued by the 1^st respondent, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dated 9.8.2017 in S.L.P.(C) Nos.13623 of 2017 and 1403334 of 2017 and batch, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

On 11.09.2017, while admitting the writ petition, this Court granted interim order directing the respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 12.05.2017 of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶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.9 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

¶8

¶9

Court dismissed the petition for same prayer, vide order dated 27.12.2016.

¶10

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.

¶11

Though the interim order was granted, but the respondents did not consider the representation 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 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.30562 OF 2017

¶21

Date:22.07.2022.

¶22

Gk.

Shaik Subhani, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Subhani, 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

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

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