APHC010326892023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3526]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT APPEAL NO: 701 OF 2023

Between:

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

SECRETARIAT COMPLEX, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. T HE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF

RURAL POVERTY (SERP) NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK PANDIT

NEHRU BUS STATION. VIJAYAWADA. KRISHNA DISTRICT

3. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF

SECRETARY FINANCE (HR.IV-FR AND LR) DEPARTMENT AP

SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

1. G VENKATA SATYAJANAKAMMA, aged 60 yrs W o G.Ram Prasad,

Occ. Addl. Director SPMU, SERP, Vijayawada, Krishna District

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)

2. Mrs.S.PRANATHI, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

The State aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge dated

21.04.2023 in W.P.No.14732 of 202 filed the present Writ Appeal.

2) Heard Mrs.S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner.

3) The respondent-writ petitioner aggrieved by the action of the appellants in retiring her at the age of 60 years invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Her grievance is that contrary to G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, wherein the age of the superannuation from 60 years to 62 years was enhanced for certain categories of Government employees, she is sought to be retired on attaining the age of 60 years. Initially, a learned Single Judge granted interim direction dated 26.05.2022 to continue her in service till attaining the age of 62 years, subject to further orders in the Writ Petition. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was allowed by an order dated 21.04.2023. The State preferred the present appeal against the said order and a Division Bench of this Court on 24.07.2023 granted interim stay of the operation of the same.

4) Smt. S.Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader sought to advance arguments with reference to the grounds raised in the Writ Appeal. However, the learned counsel for the respondent – writ petitioner states that though the writ petition was allowed, in view of the reasons set out in the said affidavit, the respondent – writ petitioner is not seeking to contest the Appeal or derive any benefits by virtue of the orders passed in W.P.No.14732 of 2022, which is under challenge and therefore the matter need not be adjudicated on merits.

5) The relevant averments in the affidavit reads thus:

“6. I respectfully submit that I have since superannuated from service upon completion of 60 years of age, and there no longer exists any surviving or enforceable cause of action for continuation in service under the challenged order. Therefore, I do not propose to further contest the matter on merits in W.P.No.14732 of 2022 or in the pending W.A.No.701 of 2023.

7. However, in view of the pendency of W.A.No.701 of 2023 and the interim stay granted therein, the respondent authorities are withholding my retiral dues, including pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and other terminal benefits, causing me undue hardship and serious financial distress post-retirement.

8. In order to facilitate the immediate release of my retirement benefits without further delay. I hereby voluntarily and unconditionally waive my rights under the judgment and order passed in W.P.No.14732 of 2022, which is now under challenge in W.A.No.701 of 2023.

9. I undertake not to claim any further relief based on the final order in W.P.No.14732 of 2022 and respectfully request this Hon’ble Court to take judicial notice