Katragadda Venkata Satish v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Jul 2024WP/9220/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh closed a writ petition concerning premature retirement. The Court observed that the respondents had complied with a prior interim order suspending the retirement memo and continuing the petitioner in service until age 60. Deeming the grievance redressed, the Court exercised its discretion to close the petition without further orders or costs.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was closed without costs as the petitioner's grievance was deemed redressed by compliance with a prior interim order.

Katragadda Venkata Satish Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9220 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Katragadda Venkata Satish, S/o. Hari Prasada Rao Aged^{about58years,} Occ. Accountant, R/o. H.No.48-5-10, Sarada Apartments Gunadala, Vijayawada (Urban), Machavaram Krishna District, Andhra^Pradesh.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief^Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Youth Advancement, Tourism^and Culture Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶12

A.P. Society for Training and Employment (APSTEP),^Awhollyowned Government of Andhra Pradesh Youth

¶13

undertaking of the Advancement, Tourism and Culture Department D.No.39-2-19-A/12, APSEB City Centre Colony, Beside MVR Mall Lane, Labbipeta Vijayawada 520010. Krishna District, Rep. by its Managing Director.

¶14

The Chairman and District Collector, Society for Employment and Training (STEP/KRISHI), a wholly owned undertaking^ofGovt,ofA.P Collectorate, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

¶15

¶16

Employment and Training (STEP/KRISHI), Krishna District a 4^ Society for at D. No. 54wholly owned undertaking of Govt, of A.P. With its office Vinayaka Theatre, Venkateswara Nagar, ‘ 16-B/2, Plot No.84, Backside , ’Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520008

¶17

Court Order dated amended in R3 and R4 as per (Cause Title is 29.05.2020 Vide lA. No. 2/2020 in Petition)

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Constitution of India praying that in Petition under Article 226 of the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may the circumstances stated in the direction more particularly be pleased fo issue an appropriate writ, order or the action of the of Writ of Mandamus declaring one in the nature the Memo.No.1443/APSTEP/Admn/2014 dated respondents issuing schedule on 31.05.2020 29.01 .2020 thereby seeking to retire the petitioner as superannuation whereby the respondents on attaining age of 58 years as wholly illegal. denied the benefit of continuity of service upto 60 years the Government Orders in GO.Ms.No.138, untenable against unjust. 08.08.2017 violative of Article 14 Finance (l-jR IV fR) Department dated orders of this Honble and 16 of Corrstltution of India as well contrary to the the respondents court as well Hohble Apex Court and conseguenfly direct ice till’ attaining the age of 60 years as per to continue the petitioner in service the aforementioned Government Orders

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 202 0

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances the High Court may be stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, pleased to suspend the operation of orders m Memo. No. 1443/APSTEP/Admn/2014, dated 29.01.2020 issued by the 2nd up to attammg the respondent enabling the petitioner to continue in service age of 60 years, pending disposal of the writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: K BHEEMA RAO

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

APHC010150832020

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

[3310]

¶29

WEDNESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO: 9220/2020

¶33

Between:

¶34

Katragadda Venkata Satish

¶35

...PETITIONER

¶36

AND

¶37

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶38

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶40

1.SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶42

1.K BHEEMA RAO

¶43

The Court made the following:

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia,}

¶46

seeking the following relief:

¶47

" 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 issuing the Memo No 1443/APSTEP/Admn/2014 dated 29.01.2020 thereby seeking to retire the petitioner schedule on 31.05.2020 on attaining age of 58 years as superannuation whereby the respondents denied the benefit of continuity of

¶48

¶49

S6rvic6 upto 60 ysdrs 3S wholly illoQdl, unjust, untenable against the Government Orders in GO.Ms.No.138 Finance (HR.IV.FR) Department, dated 08.08.2017 violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India as well contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court as weii as the Honble Apex Court and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till attaining the the aforementioned age of 60 years as per Government Orders."

¶50

As observed from the proceeding sheet, this Court by order dated 27.05.2020, suspended the impugned Memo No.1443/^APSTEP/ Admn/2014, dated 29.01.2020 and directed that the petitioner shall not^be retired from the service. 3. Heard Mr Srinivasa Rao Putluri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr K.Bheema Rao, learned counsel for^{therespondents.}

¶51

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner^{submitsthatas} orders of this Court, dated 27.05.2020, the respondents^have per the interim suspended the impugned Memo and has continued the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60 years. He further submits^{thatnowthepetitionerwas} retired from service and as the grievance of the petitioner^{wasredressed,no} further orders are required to be passed in this Writ^{Petitionandthesame} may be closed

¶52

Hence, recording the above submissions, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

¶54

1 I

¶55

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶56

closed.

¶57

Sd/- U SRI DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO PUTLURI Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

One CC to SRI K BHEEMA RAO Advocate [OPUC;

¶63

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/07/2024

ANOH^
X ) 6 DEC 2024 2
*2- ^
^ . Current Section
£espATCV<i5

ORDER

WP.No.9220 of 2020

CLOSING THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS

Katragadda Venkata Satish v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katragadda Venkata Satish v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.V. Subba Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Mines and Geology

Lalam Nukaratnam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Santhi Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B R Kumar Vs Indian

A Ravi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Lakshmana Swamy Vs The Union Bank of India