Writ petition challenging age of superannuation policy was dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner's counsel submitted the cause did not survive.
No order as to costs.
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)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 17011 OF 2011
Between:
...PETITIONER(S)
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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not implementing the policy of the CentralGovernmentinits entirely as enunciated in orders dt. 31-12-2008, which is incorporated in the UGC regulations dt. 30-06-2010, so far as the extension of the age of superannuation of the petitioners from 60 years to 65 years, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory thereby violativeofArticles14and21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondentstoenhance the age of superannuation of the petitioners from 60 years to 65 years as mandated by the UGC regulations dt. 30-06-2010.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011fWPMP. NO: 20438 OF 2011)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to retain and continue the petitioners in service of the 4th and 5th respondents universities till their attaining age of 65 years without reference to G.O.Ms.No. 14 dt. 20-02-2010 and G.O.Rt.No. 327 dt. 21-05-2011, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI K R PRABHAKAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.1,3: SRI P POONA RAO (CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT)
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI S PARIKSHITH(SCFORTELUGU
UNIVER)
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K JYOTHI PRASAD(SCFOR ANDHRA UNIV.)
The Court made the following: ORDER
w
APHC010130872011
SMB r
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3457]
THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 17011/2011
/ /
Between:
Professor D.r. Raju, Hyderabad - 45, & 3 Otrs. and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Union Of India Hr Edn Dept New Delhi 4 Otrs and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.KRPRABHAKAR
Counsel for the Respondent{S):
1.S PARIKSHITH(SC FOR TELUGU UNIVER)
2.SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY(SC FORGHMC)
3.K JYOTHI PRASAD(SC FOR ANDHRA UNIV.)
4.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
5.K LAKSHMAN (AST SOL GEN)
6.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE
7.ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Court made the following:
m
\
Sri K.R.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner(s)submitsthatthe cause in the Writ Petition does not survive any further.
- Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.Noorderasto costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,shallstandclosed.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/-G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT R^ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER
To,
nm
HIGH COURT DATED:07/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.17011 of 2011
AND«^
/ 0 3 M S'' 2325
Co//
^ . Gurreni becuon ^
DISMISING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
Professor D.R. Raju & 3 Otrs
Union of India & 4 Otrs
HARINATH.N
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
