Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/5817/2026 of MUMMA REDDY RAMA RAO Vs THE STATE OF AP on 1 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 5817/2026 Between: 1. MUMMA REDDY RAMA RAO, S/O.LATE KOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC WORKING
APHC010097402026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 5817/2026
Between:
1. MUMMA REDDY RAMA RAO, S/O.LATE KOTAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC WORKING AS PART TIME
LECTURER IN COMMERCE, GOVT.DEGREE COLLEGE, BANTUMMILLI, KRISHNA DISTRICT,A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT
BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI.
2. THE
COMMISSIONER,
COMMISSIONERATE
OF
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNAMENT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH,
D.NO.11-307,
2ND
FLOOR,
LAKSHMINARASIMHA COLONY, BYPASS ROAD, NEAR NRI
HOSPITALS, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, STATE OF
ANDHRA PRADESH, GARUDADRI, KK TOWERS, SRI
LAKSHMI NARASIMHA COLONY, MANGALAGIRI- 522503.
4. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION
ZONE II, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI COLONY, A.P- 533101
5. GOVERNAMENT
DEGREE
COLLEGE,
BANTUMILLI,
KRISHNA DISTRICT-521 324 REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINICIPAL
...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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not extending the benefit of age of Petitioner's Superannuation from to
years
vide
G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (FIR.IV-FR and LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 issued by the 1st Respondent, is arbitrary, illegal besides violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 5 to continue the petitioner in services as part time Lecturer in the 5th respondent College, till the petitioner attain the age of Superannuation of 62
years without any break and with all consequential attendant benefits including regular pay and allowances, and pass 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 pleased to consequently direct the respondents No. 1 to 5 not to disengage the services of the petitioner as part time Lecturer on 28-02-2026, but to continue the petitioner in the services as Part time Lecturer in the 5th respondent College, till Petitioner attains the age of Superannuation of 62 years without any break and with all consequential attendant benefits including regular pay and allowances, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, in the interest of Justice, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KRISHNANAND VADAKATTU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES III
The Court made the following:
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:
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 petitioner’s 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 petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Services appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the identical part-time lecturers have been continued based on the orders passed by this Court and hence, the petitioner is also entitled to continue till he attains the age of superannuation i.e 62 years.
4. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent 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. ____________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Date:02.03.2026 Gk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 5817/2026
Date:02.03.2026 Gk.