IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA : HYDERABAD * * *

Between:

Sri Mohd. Yousuf, S/o.Md.Raffi, aged 50 years, R/o.H.No.8-7-93/G/P-II/39, Gokal Enclave Phase-II, Plot No.39, Hastinapuram North Extension, Near Santoshimata Colony Road, Rangareddy District, Telangana 500079.

Petitioner VERSUS The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Registrar General, High Court for the States of T.S. & A.P.

At Hyderabad – 500 066 and Others.

Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 07.02.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _________________________________ NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA + WRIT PETITION No.39255 of 2018 % 07.02.2025 # Between:

Sri Mohd. Yousuf, S/o.Md.Raffi, aged 50 years, R/o.H.No.8-7-93/G/P-II/39, Gokal Enclave Phase-II, Plot No.39, Hastinapuram North Extension, Near Santoshimata Colony Road, Rangareddy District, Telangana 500079.

Petitioner VERSUS The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Registrar General, High Court for the States of T.S. & A.P.

At Hyderabad – 500 066 and Others.

Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner.

^Counsel for the respondent(s) : Smt.V.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for High Court for the State of Telangana appearing respondents.

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred 1) (1980) 1 SSC 12 2) 1998(7) SCC 310 3) 2001(2) SCC 305 4) 2001(3)SCC 314 5) 2002(9) SCC 704 6) 2009(15)SCC 221

7) 2013 (10) SCC 551

8) 2012 (3) SCC 580 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO.39255 OF 2018

ORDER:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda)

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, wherein petitioner was placed under compulsory retirement from service with effect from 30.04.2018 A.N. on attaining the age of 50 years in the public interest vide G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 24.04.2018 and consequential proceeding issued by respondent No.1, vide ROC No.2149/ 2018-B.Special, dated 25.04.2018.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner entered into the Judicial Ministerial Service as a Copyist on 25.09.1995 and was promoted to the post of Stenographer in the year 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was recruited to the post of Judicial Officer i.e., Junior Civil Judge by transfer on 31.10.2010 and underwent training for a period of four (4) months from 01.09.2010 to 31.12.2010 and posted as Junior Civil Judge, Sirpur at Adilabad District where he joined duty on 01.01.2011. He was posted as II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B., Nagar from 15.04.2015 to 06.12.2015. Later he was posted as XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar from 07.12.2015 to 07.05.2017. Subsequently, he was posted as Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad from 08.05.2017 till 30.04.2018, i.e., till respondent No.2 issued impugned proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 24.04.2018 by the Law (LA, LA&J-Home Courts) for compulsory retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of 50 years.

3. Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner discharged his duties in a satisfactory manner and the learned portfolio Judge’s for the respective districts have also appreciated the petitioner’s performance/ duties on many occasions. Despite the records being clean and clear, the petitioner was compulsory retired from service.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has made representation dated 21.05.208 before Hon’ble High Court to review the decision of compulsory retirement