SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18197

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NYAPATHY VIJAY
T A NEELAMANI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 21800/2024



##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:56522

APHC010423382024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3460]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION NO: 21800/2024

Between:

1. T A NEELAMANI, W/O. T.M.VASUDEVA RAO, OCC ASSISTANT

PROJECT MANAGER, (A.P.M.,) AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O.

H.NO.L2-L-740-A, ASHOK NANAR, ANANTHAPURAMAU TOWN AND

DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER

AND

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

SECRETARY, PANCHYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT,

ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. T HE SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF RURAL POVERTY SERP,

(REGT.NO.L311/200, CC.NO.67/2014) REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, (C.E.O.)., OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, PNB RTC COMPLEX,

VIJAYAWADA, A.P. PRADESH.

3. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, SATYA

SAI/ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANATHATAPURAMU DISTRICT,

ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. T HE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT,

AGENCIES (DRDA)/SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF RURAL

POVERTY (SERP),, SATYA SAI/ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT,

ANATHATAPURAMU, ANDHRA

...RESPONDENT(S):

##PAGE2##

2

2025:APHC:56522

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 pray that this Hon'ble Court for issuance of an appropriate Writ,

Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

declaring the action of the Respondents authorities in trying to prevent the

petitioner to be in service upto age of 62 in 2nd Respondent, and further action

of 4th Respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.331/H.R/DRDA-

YKP/2022, dated 24.01.2024 informing the petitioner that he would be

superannuated from 31.10.2024, thought the petitioner is entitled to be service

upto 62 years i.e., till 31.10.2026 thereby considering the amendment made

vide G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR-IV-FR and LR) Department dated 31.01.2022,

discriminating with the petitioner while allowing other employees of the 2nd

Respondent to be in service upto 62 years and not taking any decision on

increasing the age of retirement to 62 years to all the employees of the 2nd

Respondent, as was done earlier while extending age of retirement from 58 to

60 years, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice,

without any jurisdiction, violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of

the Service Condition as adopted vide G.O.Rt.No.l35, dated 08.03.1991 of

Respondent and terms and conditions of the Employment of SERF Employees,

2009 and rules made therein and consequently direct respondents to continue

petitioner service till the age of 62 years and pass such other order.

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 to

direct the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner upto age of 62

years, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such other order.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SRINIVAS BASAVA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES IV

2. HARI BABU MAGULURI SC For SERP

The Court made the following:

##PAGE3##

3

2025:APHC:56522

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION No.21800 of 2024

ORDER:

1. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of

Respondents in not extending the age of superannuation from 60 to 62

years to the Petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR-IV-FR &

LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard M/s. Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the

Respondents.

3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the Petitioner

submits that on the earlier occasion, the Petitioner’s case was considered

by enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top