N K Raghava Reddy Vs the Andhra Pradesh… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

N K Raghava Reddy Vs the Andhra Pradesh… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to continuation of service up to the enhanced superannuation age of 62 years with all consequential attendant benefits, notwithstanding the respondents' reliance on Circular Memo No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/202241R-IV dated 23.9.2022 instead of G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022. (Issue inferred from the prayer; it was never adjudicated because the petition was dismissed as infructuous.)

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded learned counsel for the petitioner's submission that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

Key takeaways

Recording that submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.ratio¶¶40
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), single Judge (Nyapathy Vijay, J.), decided 04.12.2025 — W.P.No.7251 of 2023: N K Raghava Reddy, an Assistant Engineer in the Agriculture Marketing Department serving the Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited, sought a writ of mandamus declaring that the respondents' refusal to extend his superannuation age from 60 to 62 years, founded on Circular Memo No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/202241R-IV dated 23.9.2022 issued contrary to G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR and IR) Department dated 31.01.2022, violated Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution, and for continuance in service till 62 years with consequential benefits including regular pay and allowances. An interim direction dated 23.03.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 had directed continuance of service pending disposal, and the respondents had moved to vacate it (I.A.No.2 of 2023; I.A.No.1 of 2024). At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in the writ petition did not survive for adjudication; recording that submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood dismissed as a sequel. There was no adjudication on the merits of the superannuation-extension claim.

APHC010142422023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3460]

THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION NO: 7251/2023

Between:

N K RAGHAVA REDDY, S/O. LATE N. BALAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, 0/O. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AGRICULTURE MARKETING DEPARTMENT VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE RURAL IRRIGATION CPRPORATION LIMITED, , REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NTR COLONY, NEAR GOVT.GENERAL HOSPITAL, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. 520 008.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.

THE COMMISSIONER OF COOPERATION AND REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, STATE OF A.P., 2-16-83, SKY LARK TOWERS, LANE,

2

SYAMALANAGAR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 topleased to issue a Writ or Order or a direction more particularly in a nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not extending the superannuation age from 60 years to 62 years relying on the Circular Memo No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/202241R-IV dated. 23.9.2022 issued contrary to the G.O.MS.No.15, Finance (HR.IVFRand IR) Department, dated. 31.01.2022 and violation of the rights conferred under Article 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and against the Natural Principles of Justice. and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the service of the petitioner till he attain the age of Superannuation i.e. 62 years without any break and with all consequential attendant benefits including regular pay and allowances, keeping in view of the G.O.MS.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR and IR) Department, dated. 31.01.2022 and orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.11170 of 2021, Dt.17.06.2021 and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 pleased to pass an interim direction directing the Respondents to continue the service of the petitioner till he attain the age of Superannuation i.e. 62 years without any break and with all consequential attendant benefits including regular pay and allowances, keeping in view of the G.O.MS.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&IR) Department, dated. 31.01.2022 and orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.32270 of 2022, dated.29.09.202, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

3

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 pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 23.03.2023 in IA.No. 1 of 2023 in WP.No.7251 of 2023 and dismiss the above writ petition and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 23-03-2023 passed in lA.No. 1/2023 in WP.No.7251/2023 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.P V RAMANA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR AGRICULTURE

2.K NARSI REDDY

The Court made the following:

4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

W.P.No.7251 of 2023

ORDER:

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the cause in

the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

Recording the said submission, the writ petition is

dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand

dismissed.

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

Date: 04.12.2025

KLP