A Gajendra Prasad Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

A Gajendra Prasad Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondents 3 and 4 in issuing retirement notice No. SSDC/Admn/117/2023-24 dated 29.2.2024 directing the petitioner to retire at 60 years instead of 62 years, resting solely on para 6 of Cir. Memo No. St 1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.9.2022, was illegal, arbitrary and unfair, and contrary to the Board of Directors' resolution of 5.12.1984 and the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Amendment Act, 2022 (Act 4 of 2022). (Framed from the petitioner's prayer; not judicially determined, as the petition was dismissed as infructuous.)

Ratio / Principle

Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in the writ petition does not survive, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), single bench of Nyapathy Vijay, J. — Writ Petition No. 9422 of 2024 (A. Gajendra Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others), decided 03.12.2025. The petitioner, employed with A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Limited (APSSDCL) as AM (Audit) and Manager (Fin) I/C, had sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 against retirement notice No. SSDC/Admn/117/2023-24 dated 29.2.2024 issued by Respondents 3 and 4, whereby he was ordered to retire on superannuation at 60 years (on 31.5.2024) instead of 62 years, alleging the action rested solely on para 6 of Cir. Memo No. St 1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.9.2022 issued by Respondent 1, and was contrary to the resolution of the 52nd meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation dated 5.12.1984 and to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Amendment Act, 2022 (Act 4 of 2022); he also prayed for declaration that para 6 of the Circular Memo was unsustainable and not binding on the Corporation. An interim application (IA No. 1 of 2024, Section 151 CPC) sought continuation in service till 62 years with attendant benefits by suspending the retirement notice. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in the writ petition did not survive; recording this 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. No adjudication was made on the merits of the retirement-age dispute or the validity of the Circular Memo.

APHC010190432024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3460]

WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION NO: 9422/2024

Between:

A GAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O KUPPAIAH, AGED 59 YRS, OCC AM(AUDIT) AND MANAGER (FIN) I/C, APSSDCL, H.O., VIJAYAWADA, R/O FLAT NO 2, FLOOR, BALAJI TOWERS, NEAR KASTURIBAI SCHOOL, PRASSADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA-521108

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (HR.IV-FR AND LR), GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION AGRI DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, A P SECRETARIAT, 4TH BLOCK, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

THE VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE A P STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

2

LIMITED H. NO. 4-150 PRASADAMPADU, RAMAVARAPPADU POST, VIJAYAWADA - 521 108.

A P STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, H. NO. 4-150. PRASADAMPADU RAMAVARAPPADU POST, VIJAYAWADA - 521 108. REP. BY ITS VICE-CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

...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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4thRespondent in issuing retirement notice No SSDC/Admn/117/2023-24 dated 29.2.2024 where under ordering the petitioner to retire on attainment of superannuation of 60 years i.e., dated 31.5.2024 instead of 62 years solely relying on para 6 of Cir. Memo No St 1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.9.2022 issued by the 1 Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unfair contrary to the letter and spirit of resolution taken in 52 meeting of the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent Corporation held on 5/12/1984, contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (regulation of Age of Superannuation) Amendment Act, 2022 (Act 4 of 2022) coupled with the decision of the 3rd respondent in enhancing the employees of the 4th respondent superannuation age from 60 to 62 yrs vide its letter No SSDC/Admin/RPS-2021/10/2021-22/26/0 1 dated 23.2.2022 and unconstitutional and consequently declare the para 6 of Cir. Memo No 1813129/RN01HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.9.2022 issued by the Respondent as unsustainable in the eye of law and not binding on the 3rd and 4th Respondent Corporation and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the

3

petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to attend duties till the age of attaining 62 years without any break and with all consequential attendant benefits including regular pay and allowances by Suspending the operation of retirement notice No dated 29.2.2024 issued by the & 4th SSDC/Admn/117/2023-24, respondents pending disposal of the Writ Petition and may be pleased to pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.CHALLAGALI GOPALARAJU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.A V KONDAIAH

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

3.A.V.V.S.N MURTHY SC for APSSDCL

4.GP FOR AGRICULTURE

The Court made the following:

4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

W.P.No.9422 of 2024

ORDER:

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive.

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: 03.12.2025

KLP