Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
P. Naga Jasmine – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and another – Respondents
Writ Petition No.13554 of 2020
Decided on : 15-07-2022
The Court held that the petitioner, a Principal in an A.P. Model School, was entitled to the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 24.12.2021. The Court found that the G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 24.12.2021 was retrospective in its operation with effect from 02.06.2014, the date of G.O.Ms.No.147, dated 30.06.2014 being effective. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith on the same post with all consequential and incidental service benefits and continuity of service up to the age of 60 years. The Court also directed the respondents to pay the petitioner arrears of salary for the period with effect from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 24.12.2021.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Principal in an A.P. Model School, filed a writ petition challenging the inaction of the respondents in not disposing of her representation for extension of the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014, and in not continuing her in service till she attains the age of 60 years. The petitioner contended that the respondents had extended the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation to other employees in other services including the Educational Institutions and Societies run under the control of the State Government, but had not extended the same benefit to the staff of A.P. Model Schools. The respondents contended that the extension of the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation was a policy decision of the Government and that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit as there were no service rules for the teaching and non-teaching staff of the A.P. Model Schools Society.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondents had extended the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation to other employees in other services including the Educational Institutions and Societies run under the control of the State Government, but had not extended the same benefit to the staff of A.P. Model Schools. The Court held that this was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The Court also found that the respondents' contention that the extension of the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation was a policy decision of the Government was not tenable, as the Government had already issued G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 24.12.2021, which extended the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation to the staff of A.P. Model Schools.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014? 2. Whether the respondents' inaction in not disposing of the petitioner's representation for extension of the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation and in not continuing her in service till she attains the age of 60 years was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 24.12.2021. The Court found that the G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 24.12.2021 was retrospective in its operation with effect from 02.06.2014, the date of G.O.Ms.No.147, dated 30.06.2014 being effective. The Court held that the respondents' inaction in not disposing of the petitioner's representation for extension of the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation and in not continuing her in service till she attains the age of 60 years was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith on the same post with all consequential and incidental service benefits and continuity of service up to the age of 60 years. The Court also directed the respondents to pay the petitioner arrears of salary for the period with effect from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.83, dated 24.12.2021.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Teja Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.V. Raghu Veer, learned Govt. Pleader for School Education for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:
Respondent No.2 mentioned in the same above said letter of the Respondent No.2, dt. 03.07.2020, stated supra, and the proposal of respondent No.2 made in letter vide proceedings C.No.378/A1/APMS/2015, Dt.22-08-2015 regarding the extension of benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years to the employees/teaching staff of Government A.P.Model Schools administered by the A.P.Secondary Educational Society, as already extended to the other similar Educational Society Institutions owned by the State Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.138, Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department, Dated 08-08-2017 and to other Private aided grant-in-aid schools vide G.O.Ms. No.31 School Education (PS) Department, Dated 10-07-2015 vide Act 1 of 2015 dated 3-1-2015 keep pending the same without considering since 2015 more than four years, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violating the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to:-
i. direct the respondent No.1 to dispose of the Letter vide Lr. Rc. No.ESE02-11021/223/2020, Dt.03-7-2020 of the respondent No.2 which is pending before the Office of the respondent No.I containing about the petitioner‘s representation, dt.23-05-2020 to consider her request of extending the benefit of enhancement of the petitioner‘s age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years which was already considered to the other similar Educational Society Institutions owned by the State Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.138 Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department Dated 08-08-2017 and to other Private aided grant-in-aid schools vide G.O.Ms.No.31 School Education PS Department Dated 10-07-2015 vide Act 1 of 2015 dated 3-12-015 by considering the same;
ii. Further direct the respondent No.1 to dispose the proposals mentioned in the same letter of the Respondent No.2 vide Lr. Rc. No.ESE02-11021/223/2020, Dt.03-7-2020 submitted by the Respondent No.2 also the proposals of respondent No.2 made in proceedings vide C.No.378/A1/APMS/2015 Dt.22-08-2015 which are pending before the Office of the respondent No.1 since 2015 regarding the extension of benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years to the employees/teaching staff of Government A.P. Model Schools administered by the A.P. Secondary Educational Society as already considered to the other similar Educational Society Institutions owned by the State Government vide G.O. Ms.No.138 Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department Dated 08-08-2017 and to other Private aided grant-inaid schools vide G.O.Ms.No.31 School Education (PS) Department, Dated 10-07-2015 vide Act 1 of 2015 dated 3-1-2015 consider the same;
iii. Further declare that the teaching staff/employees of the Government A.P. Model Schools administered by the A.P. Secondary Educational Society are also entitled for the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years on par with the other similar Educational Society Institutions owned by the State Government extended the said benefit by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.138 Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department Dated 08-08-2017;
iv. To direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 to exte
The extension of the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation is a policy decision of the Government, but it cannot be used to discriminate against certain employees.
The court held that the G.O. Ms. No. 83, dated 24.12.2021, which extended the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation to the employees of A.P. Model Schools, was retrospective in its operation with....
The enhancement of retirement age is a policy matter for the State Government and is not automatically applicable to all educational institutions under its governance without amendments to respective....
The court emphasized that the applicability of government orders with retrospective effect and the re-appointment of superannuated individuals are within the executive domain and cannot be directed b....
The Court held that the enhancement of age of superannuation to 62 years is a policy decision of the State Government and does not automatically apply to employees governed by independent Bye-laws.
The age of superannuation is governed by the specific bylaws of an institution, dictated by policy decisions of the State government.
Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used ....
The amendment to superannuation age applies to the petitioners as they are covered under service regulations, ensuring parity with government employees.
Changes to retirement age rules are prospective and cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
