High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 AP CK 2129

Sri. P Srinivas Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati · Decided on 8 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Nyapathy Vijay, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 16362 of 2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

9 paragraphs · 379 words
1.

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent-Authorities in not extending the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation (60 to 62 years) to the Petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to quash the memorandum issued vide Memo No.C/Estt/GT/2025, dated 22.06.2025 by Respondent No.5.

2.

The Petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Training Officer (Turner Trade) on outsourcing basis on 30.09.2008 in Government ITI, Bobbili. Later, Respondent No.5 issued a conversion order dated 31.09.2011, and the employment of the Petitioner was converted from outsourcing basis to contractual basis. At present, the Petitioner is working as Assistant Training Officer (on Contract basis) in Government ITI, Visakhapatnam, and has completed 14 years of service. It was submitted that the Petitioner is discharging full-time duties as an Assistant Training Officer. The grievance of the Petitioner now is that his services were terminated vide Memo No.C/Estt/GT/2025, dated 22.06.2025, by Respondent No.5 on the ground that the Petitioner had attained the age of 60 years and that the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation, i.e., from 60 to 62 years, as per G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022, was not being extended to him. Hence, the Writ Petition came to be filed.

3.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the Judgment, dated 21.07.2026 in W.P.No.12413 of 2025 and batch to support his contention.

4.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services does not dispute the same.

5.

This Court disposed of the W.P.No.12413 of 2025 and batch, directing the State Government to examine the issue and to take a conscious decision about enhancement of age up-to 62 years to non-regular employees working for a substantial number of years in State departments and State owned/controlled entities.

6.

In the light of the same, as the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 21.07.2026, passed in W.P.No.12413 of 2025 and batch, the present Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the said order.

7.

The Registry is directed to append a copy of the order, dated 21.07.2026, passed in W.P.No.12413 of 2025 and batch, to this order.

8.

No order as to costs.

9.

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