This single paragraph order dismissed a writ petition filed by an Assistant Manager challenging his retirement notice as illegal under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 2014.
No order of continuation in service granted; the retirement notice remains operative.
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 AT AMARAVATI ,:t; (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
'T
fR Ri.<br>;}
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
WRIT PETITION NO: 1903 OF 2016
Between:
K. Thimmareddy, S/o. K Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged about 58 years Occ. Assistant Manager, Sirivella Branch The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Sirivella, Rio. Gospadu, Deebaguntla Post, Kanalapalle Deebaguntla, Kurnool District
...PETITIONER
AND
..RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, Orders or Directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2"d respondent in issuing retirement notice of the petitioner in vide No.B9/Estt./Retirement/2015-16, dated 01.01 .2016 is contrary to the provisions of Act 4 dated 27th June, 2014 is illegal, arbitrary and ultravirus, and consequently directing the respondents to continue the petitioner upto attaining 60 years of age.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 2413 OF 2016)
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Notice of Retirement vide No.B9/Estt./ Retirement/201516, dated 01.01.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent by directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till the age of 60 years, pending disposal of the main writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. R SIVA SAI SWARUP
Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 &2: GP FOR COOPERATION
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Writ Petition No.1903 of 2016
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
Sd!- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED:11/09/2023
ORDER
WP.No.1903 of 2016
Pats 3t~ tola3
r:a
q; 04 t4uV 2023 ] Or
y * Current Section
fSPA7Ct ~~
DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the issuance of retirement notice is maintainable given the Supreme Court decision in Dr. Prakasan M.P.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue in service until attaining age of 60 years.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Prakasan M.P. and others v. State of Kerala and anotherFollowed¶27
Dr. Prakasan M.P. and others v. State of Kerala and another
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Thimmareddy
The State of Andhra Pradesh
The Chief Executive Officer, The District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.
The Registrar, the District CO-operative Central Bank Ltd.
B S Bhanumathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
