##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:56505

APHC010253342024

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: 12599/2024

Between:

1. S RI G.H ANJANEYULU,, S/O. G.HANUMAIAH, OCC COMMUNITY

COORDINATOR, (C.C), AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.5-96A,

MADAKASIRA, SATYA SAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...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. 1311/200, CC.NO.67/2014) REP. BY ITS CHIEF

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

COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA, A.P.

3. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, SATYA

SAI/ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANATHATAPURAMU DISTRICT,

ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. T HE PROJECT DIRECTOR, (SERP), SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF

RURAL POVERTY, SATYA SAI ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT,

ANATHATAPURAMU, A.P

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

2

2025:APHC:56505

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 4^th Respondent in issuing proceedings vide Rc.No.33 l/H.R/DRDA-YKP/2022,

dated 24.01.2024 informing the petitioner that he would be superannuated from

31.08.2024, thought the petitioner is entitled to be service upto 62 years i.e., till

31.08.2026 thereby considering the amendment made vide G.O.Ms.

No.15 Finance (HR-FV-FR and LR) Department dated 31.01.2022,

discriminating with the petitioner while allowing other employees of the

2^nd 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

2^nd 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 1^st 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 orders.

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

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 orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES IV

2. HARI BABU MAGULURI SC For SERP

The Court made the following:

3

2025:APHC:56505

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION No.12599 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. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, 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, and thus,

the Petitioner was allowe