Dismissed

Ponnada Satyanarayana v. Union of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Nov 2024WP/17835/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an old Writ Petition (WP No.17835 of 2011) seeking enhanced age of superannuation as infructuous after the petitioner's counsel submitted that the cause no longer survives. The order was dated 07/11/2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous without costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Ponnada Satyanarayana Vs Union of India… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV/ (Special Original Jurisdiction) i O

¶2

M
i O |||( (p

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 17835 OF 2011

¶7

Between;

¶8

Ponnada Satyanarayana, S/o Surya Rao, aged about 58 years, Reader in Chemistry IDL College of Arts and Sciences ^ , Kakinada, East Godavari District, R/o 68-6-1/3, Gokulam Street, Ashoknagar, Kakinada East Godavari District.

¶9

S. Yesu Raju, S/o Krishnam Raju, aged about 58 , , years. Senior Grade Lecturer SKBR College, Amalapuram, East Godavari District R/o. 1180, Near Konkapalli Hanuman Temple, Amalapuram East Godavari District.

¶10

T Rosaiah, S/o Rangaiah, aged about 58 years. Reader in Commerce V.R.S. & Y.R.N. College, Chirala, Prakasam District R/o 10-1-1 College Road, Kothapet, Chirala, Prakasam District.

¶11

(Note: WP is Dismissed as Withdrawn against petitioner No.3 , as perC.O. Dt. 26-04-2012)

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

Union of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi Rep. by the Secretary.

¶15

State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by the Secretary to Government Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi rep by the Secretary.

¶17

The Commissioner of Collegiate Education Government of Andhra

¶18

Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶19

The Secretary & Correspondent, IDL College of Arts^and Sciences Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶20

The Secretary & Correspondent, SKBR College, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.

¶21

The Secretary & Correspondent, V.R.S. & Y.R.N. College, Chirala Prakasam District.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

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 central government as enunciated in orders dt: 31.12.2008, dt: 11.05.2010 which is incorporated in the UGC regulations dt:30-06-2010, so far as the extension of the age of superannuation of the petitioners up to 65 years is concerned, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory thereby violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioners up to 65 years as mandated by the UGC regulations dt; 30.06.2010.

¶24

I.A. NO: 1 OF 201irWPMP. NO: 21452 OF 20111

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to retain and continue the petitioners in service of the respondents 2 and 4 to 7 till their attaining age of 65 years without reference to G.O.Ms.No. 14 dt: 20.2.2010 and G.O.Rt.No. 327 dt; 21.5.2011, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K R PRABHAKAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 4: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI N V RAMANUJAM (SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT )

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7: —

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

APHC010123652011

[3457]

Jl I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶36

ATAMARAVATI

¶37

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶38

THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶41

WRIT PETITION NO: 17835/2011

¶42

Between;

¶43

Ponnada Satyanarayana and Others

¶44

...PETITIONER(S)

¶45

AND

¶46

Union Of India Ministry Of Human Resources Development and Others

¶47

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶49

1.KRPRABHAKAR

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent(S);

¶51

1 .N V RAMANUJAM(SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT )

¶52

2.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶53

3.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE

¶54

The Court made the following:

¶55

Sri K.R.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner(s)^{submitsthatthe} cause in the Writ Petition does not survive any further.

¶56

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.^Noorderasto costs.

¶57

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶58

//TRUE COPY//

¶59

Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTi5Sl)FFICER

¶60

To,

¶61

One CC to Sri K R Prabhakar Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

Two CCs to GP for Higher Education, High Court of Andhra^Pradesh [OUT]

¶63

One CC to Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

One CC to Sri N V Ramanujam(SC for Central Govt) Advocate [OPUC]

¶65

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/11/2024

ORDER

WP.No.17835 of 2011

DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS, WITHOUT COSTS

Ponnada Satyanarayana v. Union of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnada Satyanarayana v. Union of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Sankara Rao, & 3 Others Vs the Apsrtc., Rep.by Its Vc & M.D., & 3 Others

Nunavath Srinivas Rao Vs The Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

K.Eswara Prasad, S/o late K.v.Srinivasa Rao, Vs Dredging Corporation of India Ltd.

V. Lakshmi, Prakasam District. Vs the Govt. of a.P., Hr.Education Dept.,Hyderabad, & 2 Otrs.

K.v.Naidu, Visakhapatnam District. Vs the Apsrtc, Hyderabad & 3 Others

Professor D.R. Raju, Hyderabad - 45, & 3 Otrs. Vs the Union of India, Hr.Edn.Dept.,New Delhi, & 4 Otrs.