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

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 7665

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
PALLI HYMAVATHI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WP 10284/2024



##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:5386

APHC010621042023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3458]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 32434/2023

Between:

Venkata Rama Rao ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A K KISHORE REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP)

2. V SUBRAHMANYAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 12855/2023

Between:

Palli Hymavathi ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A K KISHORE REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V SUBRAHMANYAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 17193/2023

Between:

##PAGE2##

2

2026:APHC:5386

Pentakota Rama Satyam and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. A K KISHORE REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. ANIL KUMAR DASARI

2. GP FOR SERVICES II

3. V SUBRAHMANYAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 10202/2024

Between:

GorliShoury Sukumar and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. A K KISHORE REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V SUBRAHMANYAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 10284/2024

Between:

Palli Hymavathi ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A K KISHORE REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

##PAGE3##

3

2026:APHC:5386

2. V SUBRAHMANYAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 10298/2024

Between:

Madani Maria ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A K KISHORE REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V SUBRAHMANYAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 10611/2024

Between:

Piridi Prakasha Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. A K KISHORE REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

2. V SUBRAHMANYAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 14491/2024

Between:

T. Anuradha and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. A K KISHORE REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

##PAGE4##

4

2026:APHC:5386

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V SUBRAHMANYAM

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners

and Sri V.Subrahmanyam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

2nd respondent.

2. The prayer sought in the writ petition is for a direction to the

respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioners from 60

to 62 years, on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR & LR)

Department, dated 31.01.2022, amending the provisions of Section 3 of The

Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation)

Act, 1984, (for short, “the Act, 1984”).

3. The 2nd respondent is a Central Public Sector Undertaking,

Government of India. It is contended that pursuant to a Memorandum of

Understanding between Rastriya Ispath Nigam Limited (RINL) - the

2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent - Society, the 4th respondent school was

established to impart education to the children of RINL employees. The

infrastructural facilities for running the educational institution are being

provided by the 2nd respondent at nominal charges. In pursuance thereof, the

4th respondent school was established. Contending that the provisions of the

Act, 1984, and the provisions of Section 78A of Andhra Pradesh Education

##PAGE5##

5

2026:APHC:5386

Act, 1982, as regards the age of superannuation, would apply to the case of

the petitioners, the petitioners have earlier approached this Court, seeking the

same benefit of enhanced age of superannuation as that of the teaching staff

of the Government Schools from 58 to 60 years.

4. The petitioners, who are working in the said school, had claimed

for enhancement of superannuation from 58 to 60 years on par with the

regular teachers working in the Government schools in terms of the

a

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