Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, V. SRINIVAS, JJ.
THE MANGING DIRECTOR – Petitioner
Versus
C. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY – Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos.1033, 1036, 1053, 1054, 1055 of 2022 and 174, 258, 259 and 260 of 2023
Decided On : 05-05-2023
AGE OF SUPERANNUATION - APPLICABILITY OF ACT 23 OF 1984 - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to continue their service until the age of 62, citing the enhancement of superannuation age to 62 by the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (Act 23 of 1984). The State contended that the Act only applies to specific government employees and not to employees of corporations like A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation (APEWIDC).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Act 23 of 1984 applies only to persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, and those whose salaries are paid out of the consolidated fund. The court held that the employees of corporations like APEWIDC are not eligible to claim benefits under the Act. The court also determined that the Act was not incorporated into the service rules, and the employees were not entitled to the relief sought.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of Act 23 of 1984 to the employees of APEWIDC and similar corporations. Another issue was whether the Act was incorporated into the service rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act 23 of 1984 applies only to specific categories of government employees and does not extend to employees of corporations like APEWIDC. The court also determined that the Act was not incorporated into the service rules, and the employees were not entitled to the relief sought.
Final Decision: The writ appeals were allowed, setting aside the orders passed in the writ petitions. The court held that the employees of corporations like APEWIDC are not entitled to the benefits of Act 23 of 1984, and the orders of the learned single judge were not sustainable.
JUDGMENT :
(D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.)
These Writ Appeals are filed assailing the common order passed in W.P.Nos.8225, 8226 and 15889 of 2022, dated 11.08.2022; and the similar orders passed in W.P.Nos.29640 of 2022; 29684 of 2022; 29942 of 2022; 30133 of 2022; 30319 of 2022; 31027 of 2022 and 30133 of 2022.
2. With the consent of the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents W.A.No.1036 of 2022 is taken as the lead case for arguments in these appeals.
3. This Court has heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel and Sri P.V.A. Padmanabham, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. In addition Sri M. Sree Rama Rao and Sri G. Jagadeeswar supplemented the submissions.
4. W.A.No.1036 of 2022 is filed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.8225; 8226 and 15889 of 2022. The writ Petitioners have sought identical prayers. The prayer in W.P.No.8225 of 2022 is as follows :
5. Similar prayers are made in other writ petitions. The writ petitioners want a mandamus against the orders impugned by which the petitioners’ request for continuation of service till attaining the age of 62 years was negatived.
6. The facts in W.P.No.8225 of 2022 are relied upon. The petitioner in the said writ petition pleads that since he is rendering service in the A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short “APEWIDC”) he is entitled to the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation, which is enhanced to 62 years by the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (for short “the Act 23 of 1984”). This was initially done by Ordinance No.1 of 2022, dated 17.01.2022, which later became Act No. 4 of 2022. By this Ordinance and the Act, the age of superannuation was increased to 62 years. The writ petitioners claim that the same is applicable to them and the organization they work for. Hence they have filed the writ petitions for the reliefs mentioned above. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the State stating that the said ordinance will not apply to the petitioners and others, who are employees of APEWIDC etc., and such other organizations. It is pointed out that the ordinance would only apply to the State Government employees and the employees mentioned in the Act No.23 of 1984 only. It is also urged that the Division Bench Judgment of this combined Court reported in G. Rama Mohan Rao and another v Government Andhra Pradesh, (2017) 3 ALT 1 (DB)=2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 54 has not been considered by the learned Judge. It is stated that this judgment is an answer to all the contentions of the writ petitioner.
7. Learned Advocate General relies upon the grounds of Appeal and makes his submissions. The essential submissions of the learned Advocate General can be summarized as follows :
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (Act 23 of 1984) applies only to specific categories of government ....
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 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 age of superannuation is governed by the specific bylaws of an institution, dictated by policy decisions of the State government.
The determination of superannuation age is a policy decision of the government, requiring its approval for amendments, and courts cannot intervene without legal authority.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, which enhanced the age of superannuation of Government Employees from 60 years to 62 years, t....
The amendment to superannuation age applies to the petitioners as they are covered under service regulations, ensuring parity with government employees.
(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....
The court established that employees of public sector undertakings do not automatically benefit from government amendments to superannuation age unless their governing regulations are amended accordi....
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
