Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI. : - In the elections held to the Legislative. Assembly of Andhra Pradesh in January 1983, a new political party called Telugu Desam was swept to power. It assumed office on Jan. 9, 1983. On Feb. 8, 1983 an order (G. O. Ms. No. 36) was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh stating that it had decided to reduce the age of superannuation of all Government employees, other than in the last Grade Service, from 58 to 55 years. Two notifications issued in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 read with Art. 313 of the Constitution were appended to that Order. The relevant Fundamental Rules were amended by the first notification, while the corresponding rules of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules were amended by the second notification. By these notifications, every Government servant, whether ministerial or non-ministerial but not belonging to the last Grade Service, who had already attained the age of 55 years was to retire from service with effect from Feb. 28, 1983. Speaking to the Government employees in the Secretariat premises the next day, the Chief Minister justified the reduction of the retirement age from 58 to 55 years on the ground that it had become necessary to provide greater employment opportunities to the youths. Over 18.000 Government employees and 10,000 public sector employees were superannuated as a result of the Order.

2. These writ petitions were filed by the Andhra Pradesh Government employees to challenge the aforesaid Order and the notifications on the ground that they violate Arts. 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution. The case of the petitioners as laid in the writ petitions is that there was no basis at all for reducing the age of retirement from 58 to 55; that the age of retirement was increased from 55 to 58 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by a notification dated Oct. 29, 1979 and nothing had happened since then to justify reduction of the age of retirement again to 55; that providing employment opportunities to the youths has no relevance on the question of fixing the age of retirement; that the Government had exercised its power arbitrarily without having regard to factors which are relevant on the fixation of the age of retirement; that the Government had acted unreasonably in not giving any previous notice to the employees which would have enabled them to arrange their affairs on the eve of retirement; that the Government was estopped from reducing the age of retirement to 55, since the employees had acted on the representation made to them in 1979 by increasing the age of retirement from 55 to 58; that as a result of the increase in the age of retirement from 55 to 58 years in 1979, a vested right had accrued to the employees, which could be taken away, if at all, only from future entrants to the Government service; that retirement of experienced and mature persons from Government service will result in grave detriment to public services of the State; and that, the decision of the Government is bad for a total non-application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of the age of retirement, like increased longevity. The petitioners aver that the Government had not even considered the enormous delay which would be caused in the. payment of pensionary benefits to employees who were retired from service without any pre-thought.

3. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh by Shri R. Parthasarathy, Joint secretary in the Finance Department of the State, at the stage of admission of the writ petitions. It is stated in that affidavit that. the recommendation of the One Man Pay Commission appointed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, after which the age of retirement was increased to 58 in 1979, has no relevance to the present decision of the State to reduce the age of retirement; that the fact that the average expectation of life is about 70 years is not a ground for increasing the age