ORDER :

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Petitioner is a Judicial Officer having retired as I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. She has preferred this writ petition challenging the order ROC No.598/2021-B. Special dated 04.05.2022, informing her that she would be attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years as on 31.05.2022, based on G.O.Rt.No.228, Law (L.A & J – SC.F) Department dated 16.08.2021, through which a list of District and Sessions Judges, Senior Civil Judges and Junior Civil Judges, who would be retiring in the calendar year 2022 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years, was published.

2. Petitioner joined service as Junior Civil Judge on 01.06.1995; promoted as Senior Civil Judge in February 2008 and thereafter as District and Sessions Judge in March 2016. Undisputedly, her service is governed by Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (“Rules 2007” for brevity), which were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.119 Law (L.A & J – SC.F) Department dated 02.08.2008; however, they came into force with effect from 01.01.2007. These Rules were framed by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in consultation with the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Articles 233, 234, 235, 237 read with proviso to Article 309 and proviso to clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India.

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh enacted Act 4 of 2014, called as the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014, amending the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 and enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. Accordingly, the Government employees working in the State of Andhra Pradesh continued upto the age of 60 years. The State of Andhra Pradesh, again, promulgated Ordinance No.1 of 2022 on 30.01.2022 under Clause (1) of Article 213 of the Constitution of India, which came into force with effect from 01.01.2022. By this Ordinance, it was decided to enhance the current age of superannuation of 60 years to 62 years for all the State Government employees with effect from 01.01.2022. The 1st respondent has also adopted the Ordinance for applying the same to the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

4. In the above backdrop, Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is entitled to continue in judicial service till she attains the age of superannuation of 62 years; however, her representation claiming continuation in service upto the age of 62 years has not been decided by the 1st respondent. It is argued that under Rule 16 of the Rules 2007, the age of superannuation of a member of judicial service is 60 years or such further age as is fixed by the Government from time to time. Therefore, the Government having enhanced the age of superannuation by virtue of Ordinance No.1 of 2022, the petitioner is also entitled to continue in service upto the age of 62 years. It is further argued that High Court of Andhra Pradesh lacks authority and jurisdiction to go contrary to the letter and spirit and wisdom of the rule-making authority and policy decision of the State Government. Referring to the decision taken by the High Court for the State of Telangana, it is further argued that when the State of Telangana increased the age of superannuation of its employees upto the age of 61 years, the same facility was extended by the High Court for the State of Telangana to the members of judicial service; therefore, the same facility should have been extended in the State of Andhra Pradesh also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singareni Collieries Company Limited v. Vemuganti Ramakrishna Rao, (2013) 8 SCC 789 (paragraph 20), Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board v. Indraprastha Gas Limited and others, (2015) 9 SCC 209 and B.S. Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1981 SC 561 (para