Petitioner challenged retirement at age 58 as illegal. Court found petitioner joined again at age 60 after rule enhancement and retired subsequently, receiving benefits. Petitioner offered to withdraw petition. Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
None granted; 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.
1
APHC010242292016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3333]
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 29097/2016
Between:
K.Padmavathi
...PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh and 5 others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.M SHALINI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“…. to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to relieve the petitioner at the age 58 years instead of 60 years is illegal, arbitrary, violative their own rules, as unconstitutional consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years as was being done in cases of employees working in the similar corporation and pass…”
years and thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2018. Subsequently, she was also paid all the terminal benefits.
It also appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed a letter to
3
the respondents informing them that, since she was reinstated into service on 29.01.2018 and thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.08.2018, she intends to withdraw the present writ petition.
3. Recording the above contentions, the Writ Petition is dismissed as
infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date: 04.12.2024 KGR
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Padmavathi
The State of Andhra Pradesh
V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
