S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners herein are aggrieved by an interim order dated 13-12-2000 passed in OA No. 3427 of 2000 granted in favour of the 1st respondent herein by the A. P. Administrative tribunal which is to the following effect:"pending further consideration of the OA, the 2nd respondent is directed to reinstate the applicant into duty forthwith and continue to pay his pay and allowances which he was drawing as on the date of his retirement on 30-6-2000. However, the applicant is not entitled to make any claim for wages for the period from the date of his retirement on 30-6-2000 till his actual date of reinstatement, and this issue will be agitated at the time of final disposal of the OA. "

( 2 ) THE question which arose for consideration in the Original Application filed by the 1st respondent herein is as to whether having regard to the provisions of section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public employment (Regulation of Age of superannuation) Act, 1984 (for short the act ), his age of superannuation will be 58 years or 60 years. If he is a workman, his age of superannuation would be 60 years whereas if he is a supervisor the same would be 58 years.

( 3 ) THE learned Tribunal purported to have arrived at a prima facie finding that having regard to the fact that even a foreman employed by the petitioners herein had been held to be a workman and as the category of Work Inspector was included in the superior category along with the categories of Foreman and Assistant foreman, there is discrimination against the 1st respondent in not allowing him to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years and accordingly passed by the above interim order.

( 4 ) BEFORE adverting to the question involved in this application, the basic fact of the matter may be noticed: the petitioners informed the 1st respondent by letter-dated 11-2-2000 that his date of superannuation is 30-6-2000. 1 st respondent filed an Original Application there against before the Tribunal which was marked as OS No. 2790 of 2000. By an order dated 9-6-2000, he was directed to approach the petitioners at the first instance. By reason of an order dated 30-6-2000, the additional Commissioner (Admn.), MCH rejected the representation of the 1st respondent holding:"in the reference 1st cited Sri Ibrahim khan, Vehicle Inspector has been informed that he is retiring from service on 30-6-2000 on attaining the age of superannuation age of (58) years. Aggrieved with the above orders sri Ibrahim Khan, Vehicle Inspector filed a case in Hon ble A. P. Administrative tribunal in OA No. 2790 of 2000. The hon ble A. P. Administrative Tribunal directed the applicant to make a representation to the Commissioner, mch requesting for continuing him in service till he attains the age of (60) years, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on receipt of such representation, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a month thereafter. Till such time the orders are passed on the representation, the impugned proceedings No. 111. HG/ health/mch/2000, dated 11/15-2-2000 are kept in abeyance. Accordingly Sri Ibrahim Khan, Vehicle inspector has submitted a representation vide reference 3rd cited for continuing him in service till he attains the age of (60) years. In order to examine this issue, a committee has been constituted with the additional Commissioner (Hands), additional Commissioner (Finance), additional Commissioner (Pandw), examiner of Accounts, Financial Advisor of MCH. The Committee after examining this issue observed that since the work and duties of Vehicle Inspector are supervisory in nature, and he was also promoted from the category of Driver whose age of retirement on superannuation is (58) years, his request to continue him in service till he attains the age of (60) years cannot be considered. Accordingly, Sri Ibrahim Khan, vehicle Inspector, MCH is hereby retired on 30-6-2000 (AN) on attai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document