K V SATYANARAYANA vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Advocate - GP FOR SERVICES I — WP/8236/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.

Next hearing 28-Apr-2026

CNR: APHC010151792026

Filing Number

WP/12200/2026

Filing Date

18-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP/8236/2026

Registration Date

24-Mar-2026

Judge

D Ramesh

Coram

D Ramesh

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVP., (MISC.MATTERS) ( 35 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Last updated 28-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.K V SATYANARAYANA

    Adv. B BHASKARA REDDY

  2. 2.R.Srinivasa Raju

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Advocate - GP FOR SERVICES I

  2. 2.The State of Andhra Pradesh,

  3. 3.The Engineer-in-Chief

  4. 4.The Superintending Engineer,

  5. 5.The Executive Engineer,

Case History

  1. 28-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    D RameshView PDF

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    D RameshView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued an interim direction in Writ Petition No. 8236 of 2026, directing the respondents to continue two petitioners (a Typist and Technical Work Inspector) in service up to age 62 years, pending final disposal of the petition. The court granted this interim relief while seeking the respondents' counter-affidavit within four weeks, as the petitioners challenged the non-extension of their superannuation age under GOMs.No.15, Finance Department, dated 31.1.2022, claiming it was arbitrary and discriminatory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 31-Mar-2026

    Admission

    D Ramesh

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/8236/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued an interim direction in Writ Petition No. 8236 of 2026, directing the respondents to continue two petitioners (a Typist and Technical Work Inspector) in service up to age 62 years, pending final disposal of the petition. The court granted this interim relief while seeking the respondents' counter-affidavit within four weeks, as the petitioners challenged the non-extension of their superannuation age under GOMs.No.15, Finance Department, dated 31.1.2022, claiming it was arbitrary and discriminatory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case