The Single Judge held that the Writ Petition challenging a retirement notice does not survive for adjudication because the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation in 2015, making the cause action-barred.
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 SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 32323 OF 2015
Between:
Muniswamy. Occ: Worked as Assistant Manager. Ltd., Chitfoor Dis^tric^ District Co-operative Central Bank
...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 appropriate Writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing retirement notice of the petitioner is contrary to Act 4 of 2014 dated 27-06-2014 and also in violation of Proceedings dated 10-08-2015, 12-08-2015 and 22-08-2015 arbitrary and illegal and set aside the same consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service in view of the Proceedings dated 10-082015, 12-08-2015 and 22-08-2015 in the interest of justice.
/ / /
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 41765 OF 2nifi)
/
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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service in accordance with Act 4 of 2014 pending disposal of the Writ petition in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. M. SHALINI
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI T. NAGARJUNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER
[3333]
^ ’
APHC010488382015
■
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 32323/2015
Between:
M.subramanyam
...PETITIONER
AND
Prl Secy Agriculture Cooperation Dept Hyd 2 Others and...RESPONDENT{S) Others
Counsel for the Petitioner;
1.M SHALINI
Counsel for the Respondent{S);
1 .T NAGARJUNA REDDY
2.GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP)
The Court made the following;
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the respondents in issuing retirement notice to the petitioner which is contrary to Act 4 of 2014 dated 27.06.2014 and also in violation of Proceedings dated 10.08.2015, 12.08.2015 and 22.08.2015.
- Since the matter pertains to the year 2015 and alsoinviewofthefact that the petitioner has already attained the age of super-annuation, this Court is of the opinion that the cause in the Writ Petitiondoesnotsurviveforfurther adjudication.
- Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, i'' Petition, shall also stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To
SECTION OFFICER
Cnr
PRK
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/09/2024
ORDER
WP.No.32323 of 2015
O ^ 0 FEB 2125
V # Oticdon . e»//
X^^TCH€0>
CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Writ Petition challenging the issuance of a retirement notice survives given that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Muniswamy
Secretary, Agriculture Department
Commissioner for Cooperation
V. SUJATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
