2021 Supreme(AP) 222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
K.Subbarayudu and others - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Chief Secretary and others -Respondents
W.P.Nos.2350, 1219, 1656, 21, 2277, 2450, 4204, 4629, 4735, 5631, 994 of 2020 and W.P.No.19075, 19950 and 20277 of 2019
Decided On : 16-04-2021

Point of Law: whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall not be applicable with respect to one and single class of persons, the benefit to be given to the one class of persons, who are already otherwise getting the benefits and the question is with respect to revision

Headnote:

A.P. Public Employment Act, 1984 - Section 3 - Constitution of India - Article 309 - illegal, arbitrary – Removed from service – Claim of compensation - find out whether it is mandatory or directory - Whether the age of superannuation should be is a matter of policy, and such policy decisions can be changed by the Government for just and valid reasons - In furtherance of this amended clause Government hereby order that employees working in Companies/Corporations/Societies included in the Schedule IX and X of Andhra Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2014, shall not be superannuated only on ground of attainment of age - In case such an employee is superannuated on that ground he/she shall be reinstated and continued up to –

Finding of the Court:

In case any employee has retired only on ground of attaining age such employees shall be reinstated and continued in service until further orders, but in no case, beyond - Apex Court further made it clear that this order will apply to all similarly situated employees under respondent-institutions whether they are the petitioners before this court or not and therefore those similarly situated persons need not travel to this Court – But respondents did not adhere to directions issued by Apex Court in various orders referred above issued impugned notification such act of respondents can be described as - Therefore such discrimination of employees dividing into two groups amounts to arbitrary exercise of power by respondents and it is contrary to directions issued by Apex Court in various Special Leave Petitions and contempt cases referred in earlier paragraphs –

Result – Petition dismissed