The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless a memo is adopted by the employer, an employee cannot claim as a matter of right to continue in service beyond the specified age of superannuation.

ORDER :

1. Impugning the orders of 1st respondent vide Ref.No.RC.AD/LWO/2021 dated 30.11.2021 whereby retiring the petitioner from service at the age of 58 years, the above writ petition is filed.

2. (a) The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Labour Welfare Officer in 1st respondent industry on 09.11.2006 after due selection process. Petitioner served in the industry as regular employee and the contractual period was due to expire on 21.12.2023 on attaining the age of 60 years. According to the Standing Orders, there are two cadres of employees in the establishment, 1) Manager and 2) Worker. Office of the Labour Welfare Officer is not clothed with any financial or managerial powers. All the employees, other than Manager, are treated as workers. The age of superannuation according to the Standing Orders is 60 years. However, 1st respondent vide proceedings, impugned in the writ petition, extended contract service upto 21.12.2021 only, since the petitioner is attaining the age of 58 years.

(b) The Government of Andhra Pradesh, after reorganization of the State, extended the age of superannuation to all the employees in the State upto 60 years vide G.O.Ms.No.147 Finance (HRM IV) Department, dated 30.06.2014. The institutions specified in Schedule IX and X under the Act in the State of Andhra Pradesh were directed not to retire its employees on the ground that they crossed the age of 58 years. Pursuant to the proposals of the Director of Sugar and Labour Commissioner to enhance the age of retirement in respect of staff and workmen of the Cooperative Sugar Factories, the Government issued Memo No.89766/Est/A1/2017 dated 23.07.2018 giving instructions to the Managing Committees of the respective Board of Directors/PICs to enhance the age duly taking into consideration the financial position. 1st Respondent, accordingly, is continuing all the staff and workmen upto the age of 60 years. The respondents are selectively implementing the Government orders. With these averments, the above writ petition is filed.

3. (a) Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 3rd Respondent. The Director of Sugar & Cane Commissioner deposed to the affidavit. It was contended, interalia, that the petitioner was appointed as Labour Welfare Officer purely on contract basis and on consolidated pay by the 1st respondent. The selection of petitioner was not made through selection committee constituted under Common Cadre Regulations prescribed as per Section 116-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”). The Rules and Regulations framed for the Common Cadre Officers of Cooperative Sugar Factories are not applicable to the petitioner. As per Regulation No.30 of Common Cadre Regulations, the age of superannuation of regular Common Cadre Officers is 58 years only and the same was not enhanced due to bad financial position of Cooperative Sugar Factories. The contractual services of petitioner were continued from time to time on humanitarian grounds, basing on the requirement of 1st respondent. Since the petitioner is working as Labour Welfare Officer purely on contract basis and consolidated pay, he is not entitled to continue in service beyond 58 years.

(b) 1st Respondent is a Cooperative Society registered under the Act and it is not a government undertaking. As per Section 9 of the Act, the 1st respondent is a body corporate and is entitled to do all the things necessary for the purpose for which it was constituted. The provisions of G.O.Ms.No.147 Finance (HRM IV) Department dated 30.06.2014 are not applicable to 1st respondent, since the Cooperative Sugar Factories do not come under Schedule IX and X of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. The Government Memo No.8976/Estt./A1/2017 dated 23.07.2018 is not applicable to the petitioner, since he is not a regular employee of 1st respondent or a regular Common Cadre Officer and eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard S