THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 25529 of 1999 O R D E R: Heard Sri S. Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents. The writ petitioner has retired from the service of the 1st respondent, which has since been constituted as a University, as an Assistant Registrar, on 31.07.1999, on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. The petitioner has contended that the University Grants Commission has made certain recommendations, which have been considered by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), which passed orders through their order No. F.1-49/98-U.1, dated 21.04.1999 setting out that the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 62 years is available only to the Teachers, Registrars, Joint Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Assistant Registrars, Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Assistant Librarians, Directors of Physical Education, Assistant Directors of Physical Education, Deputy Directors of Physical Education, Finance Officers and Controllers of Examinations whose age of superannuation was 60 years prior to the issue of the Department’s Notification No. F.1-22/97-U.I, dated 27.07.1998/06.11.1998 and that the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation of 62 years is not available to any other category of Group-A Officers in the University. Since the writ petitioner has asserted that he was promoted as an Assistant Registrar and that he was working as such, as on 31.07.1999, he is entitled to the benefit of the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development on 21.04.1999 referred to supra and consequently, ought to have been continued in service till such time he attained the age of 62 years. Taking these aspects into account and consideration on 15.12.1999, while issuing rule nisi, this Court passed orders on W.P.M.P.No. 32192 of 1999, to the following effect: “ In the circumstances and pending consideration of the issue in the main writ petition, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.06.1999 and dispose of the same in the light of the guidelines issued by the Government of India in its letters dated 21.04.1999 and 29.06.1999 expeditiously and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” In view of these directions, the respondent University could have taken an appropriate decision in the matter. If the writ petitioner has still any subsisting grievance against the same, it is always open to him to agitate about it independently. Suffice for the present, to reiterate the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No. 32192 of 1999 on 15.12.1999 as final orders in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is therefore disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 16th June 2010 ksld