Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
P. Naga Jasmine – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 13554 of 2020
Decided On : 15-07-2022
The court held that the petitioner, a principal in a government-aided school, was entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, as per G.O. Ms. No. 83 dated 24.12.2021, and was to be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential and incidental service benefits and continuity of service up to the age of 60 years. The court found 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 effect from 02.06.2014, the date of G.O. Ms. No. 147, dated 30.06.2014, being effective. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to 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 a government-aided school, filed a writ petition challenging the inaction of the respondents in not disposing of her representation for extension of the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, as per G.O. Ms. No. 83 dated 24.12.2021. The petitioner contended that she was entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation as it had been extended to other similar educational institutions and societies run by the state government. The respondents contended 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 petitioner was entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, as per G.O. Ms. No. 83 dated 24.12.2021, and was to be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential and incidental service benefits and continuity of service up to the age of 60 years. The court found 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 effect from 02.06.2014, the date of G.O. Ms. No. 147, dated 30.06.2014, being effective. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of salary for the period with effect from the date of issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 83, dated 24.12.2021.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, as per G.O. Ms. No. 83 dated 24.12.2021.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, as per G.O. Ms. No. 83 dated 24.12.2021, and was to be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential and incidental service benefits and continuity of service up to the age of 60 years. The court found 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 effect from 02.06.2014, the date of G.O. Ms. No. 147, dated 30.06.2014, being effective. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of salary for the period with effect from the date of issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 83, dated 24.12.2021.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith 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
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. - 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:
"... to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the Respondent No. 1 in not disposing the Letter vide Lr. Rc. No. ESE02-11021/223/2020, Dt. 03-7-2020 of the respondent No. 2 who brought to the notice of the respondent No. 1 about the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2020 containing the petitioner's request to extend the benefit of enhancement of petitioner's age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years without considering the same and not disposing the proposals submitted by the 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. 1 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-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 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) Dep
AI
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 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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the autonomy of Cooperative Credit Societies in making decisions regarding personnel policy, staffing, and retirement age, and the importance of co....
(1) Whether age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance age of superannuation, date with effect from which enhancement should be made falls....
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
