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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the respondents, particularly the 2nd respondent in proceeding to dispense with the service of the petitioners on ground of attaining 60 years, without applying the benefit conferred under A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act 2022, as highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners up to completion of age of 62 years in the interest of justice and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 petitioners till attaining the age of 62 years, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of age of petitioners’ superannuation from 60 to 62 years vide G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR-IV-FR & LR) Department dated 31.01.2022 issued by the 1st respondent being illegal arbitrary and pass such other order or orders.…”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Services appearing on behalf of the respondents.

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

4. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that initially 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 G.O 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:

“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 re-engage 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.”

5. 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. No order as to costs.

6. Registry shall tag the copy of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.770 of 2022 along with the copy of the order of the present writ petition.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.