Telangana High Court
WP/21235/1998 of S. Chennaiah, Vs The Superintending Engineer on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 21235 of 1998 Between: S. Chennaiah, S/o. Singaraiah, Lineman, PWD Workshop, Division
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAOWRIT PETITION NO : 21235 of 1998
Between:
S. Chennaiah, S/o. Singaraiah, Lineman, PWD Workshop, Division Seethanagaram, Guntur District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Superintending Engineer, PWD Workshop, Seethanagaram, Guntur District, Guntur.
2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, I & CAD Services (V) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the actionof the first respondent in directing the petitioner to retire from service on attaining theage of Superannuation w.e.f 31-7-1998 in guise of the provisions of the AmendedAct 19/97 to A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation)Amendment to the age of Superannuation Act, is highly illegal, arbitrary andviolative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, and consequentially to quashthe sub-Section (4) of sub-section (3) of Section-3 of the Age of Superannuation Act,19/97 and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner upto the age of 60 yearsand to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and properin the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.RAMANA
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS
The Court made the following ORDER:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a letter dated27.12.2004 before the Registry seeking permission of this court to withdraw the WritPetition. Permission is accorded.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
________________
B.Prakash Rao, J
Date: 28.12.2004
Ka
To
1 The Superintending Engineer, PWD Workshop, Seethanagaram, Guntur District, Guntur.2 The Principal Secretary, I & CAD Services (V) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
3 Two CCs to G.P. for Roads and Buildings, High Court of A.P. Buildings,Hyderabad (OUT)
4 Two CD Copies