The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking retirement age enhancement to 60 years and quashing of non-extension as infructuous on the counsel's submission that the cause does not survive.
None; petition dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY. THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 15808 OF 2015
Between:
2’ APP® Rao. Age: 57 years. Occ: Driver. ArREIS. Bhoopathipalem. Gokavaram mandal. East Godavari District. A.P.
and
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that a) Petitioners are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of superannuation of 60. years, b) declare that Petitioners are entitled for enhancement of retirement age to 60 years which was issued by the Government by way of Amendment to A.P. Public Employment Act. 2014 (Act 4 of 2014) vide G.O.Ms.No.147. dated:30-06-2014. c) action of the respondents in not extending the enhancement of retirement age to 60 years to the Petitioners are illegal and arbitrary.
<
/ ff /
LA. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 20575 OF 2015)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the Petitioners in service till they attain the age of 60 years pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI V. JAGADISH FOR
SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI K. UMA SHANKAR
The Court made the following: ORDER
!
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
Writ Petition No. 15808 of 2015
ORDER:
When the matter was taken up for hearing today. Sri V.Jagadish, learned counsel represented on behalf of Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner states that cause in this writ petition does not survive and therefore, the matter has become infructuous.
shall also stand closed.
SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
^^E^I^irOFFICER
high court
DATED:21/O4/2O23
ORDER WP.No.15808of2015
2 8 AUG 2023
Current Sec Sr*:; .
dismissing the W P AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
N.Vijayasree
A.P. Rao
State of Andhra Pradesh
V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
