High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 10 AP CK 0004

K.Pavan Kumar vs Prl Secretary Endowment And 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 17 October 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No: 31116 Of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 230 words

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J

1.

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following main relief:

“to issue a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the time scale to the petitioners as Computer Operator/Junior Assistant Cadre in the 3rd respondent institution as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, violative of Article 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to extend the time scale attached to the post of Computer Operator/Junior Assistant Cadre in the 3rd respondent institution and grant all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits and to pass......”

2.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for 3rd respondent jointly submitted that the petitioner was accorded minimum time scale and the cause in the writ petition already fulfilled, as such, no further orders are necessary. To that effect, the learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent also placed the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner and Executive Officer, Sri PMK Choultry, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, dated 12.12.2018.

3.

Recording the submission made by both the counsels, the writ petition is closed.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.