Menda Venkata Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

MENDA VENKATA RAO, S/O. APPALA SWAMY, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC LAB ATTENDER (VOCATIONAL) GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, NAUPADA, SANTHABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION (INTERMEDIATE) DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522501

¶16

THE GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE, NAUPADA, SANTHABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P. - 532211 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

2

¶19

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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in proceeding to dispense the services of the petitioner on the ground of attaining the age of 60 years without applying the benefit conferred under Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2022 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner up to completion of age of 62 years on par with others by extending by extending the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 15 Finance (HR. IV- FR and LR) Department dated 31.01.2022 and pass such

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 to direct the Respondents to continue the services of the petitioner in 4th respondent’s College, till attaining the age of 62 years i.e., 30-062028 with all attending benefits, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass such

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR SERVICES III

¶25

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶26

3

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 10250 of 2026

¶29

The Court made the following Order:

¶30

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶31

Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶32

“to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 3rd respondent in proceeding to dispense the services of the petitioner on the ground of attaining the age of 60 years without applying the benefit conferred under Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2022 as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner up to completion of age of 62 years on par with others by extending by extending the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 15 Finance (HR. IVFR and LR) Department dated 31.01.2022 and to pass such …..”

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

¶34

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the identical part-time lecturers have been continued based on the orders passed by this Court and hence, the petitioner is also entitled to continue till he attains the age of superannuation i.e., 62 years.

¶35

Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the

¶36

3^rd respondent has made submissions based on the instructions

¶37

4

¶38

furnished by the Commissioner, Intermediate Education dated 24.02.2026. According to the said instructions though the initial writ petitions were disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to continue the identical part-time employees by applying the principles laid down in G.O.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, the age of retirement came to be increased from “60” to “62 years” and the said order challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by way of W.A.No.770 of 2022, which was disposed of on 13.02.2024 modifying the order with the following directions:

¶39

“Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is partly allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside and liberty is reserved to the Appellants to reengage the Respondent, if they so desire, and also other similarly situated employees even beyond the age of “60 years” subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O. No. 15, dated 31.01.2022. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶40

Considering the submissions and on perusal of the judgment dated 13.02.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.770 of 2022, this writ petition is also disposed of with the same relief as granted in the W.A.No.770 of 2022. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

5

¶42

Registry shall tag the copy of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.770 of 2022 along

¶43

with the copy of the order of the present Writ Petition.

¶44

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶45

__________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶46

Date: 20.04.2026 Note : Issue C.C. by 24.04.2026 B/o. PSA

Menda Venkata Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Menda Venkata Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kodati Ramya Krishna Vs M. Abhishikth Kishore

Gadi Srinivasu Vs the State of Ap

Girijala Chandra Sekhar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

T a Maha Laxmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sandepogu Yesepu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G Pushpalatha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh