SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 1135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Thota Venkateswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 27810, 29918 of 2022
Decided on : 02-05-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Advocate- NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA
For the Respondent:Advocate - Advocate-SATHEESH KUMAR EERLA, HANUMANTHA RAO BACHINA

Headnote:

Mandamus - Retirement Age - APTDC Employees - Rule 7 of APTDC Employees (Service) Rules 2001 - The court considered the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR.IV FR & LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 and the amendment of Rule 7 of APTDC Employees (Service) Rules 2001 in the context of the retirement age of APTDC employees. The court found that the respondents had shown clear discrimination towards the employees and directed the respondents to continue the petitioners' services up to the age of 62 years in line with the government employees and to consider the proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years within a specified period.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, APTDC employees, sought a writ of mandamus to retire at the age of 62, in line with the government employees, as per G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR.IV FR & LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022. The respondents initially ratified the service continuation of certain employees up to the age of 62 but later directed the petitioners to retire at 60. The petitioners filed writ petitions and obtained interim direction to continue their services till 62. The respondents, however, did not comply, leading to contempt cases.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents had discriminated against the petitioners by initially ratifying the service continuation of certain employees up to the age of 62 but later directing the petitioners to retire at 60. The court observed that the respondents' actions were discriminatory and directed the respondents to continue the petitioners' services up to the age of 62 in line with the government employees and to consider the proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years within a specified period.

Issues: The main issue was the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR.IV FR & LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 and the amendment of Rule 7 of APTDC Employees (Service) Rules 2001 in the context of the retirement age of APTDC employees. The court also addressed the discrimination shown by the respondents towards the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents' actions were discriminatory and directed the respondents to continue the petitioners' services up to the age of 62 in line with the government employees and to consider the proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years within a specified period.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, directing the respondents to continue the petitioners' services up to the age of 62 in line with the government employees and to consider the proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years within a specified period. There was no order as to costs.

ORDER :

These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of mandamus by declaring that the petitioners are entitled to retire on their attaining the age of 62 years and further to direct the respondents to extend the services of petitioners up to the age of 62 years by continuing their services in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR.IV.FR & LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 on par with the Government Employees and pass such other orders.

2. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, the same are heard and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri C. Sumon, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 is a Tourism Development Corporation, working under the control of the respondent No.1. The petitioners are working in different position and now they got promotions in the present designation. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has taken a policy to enhance the superannuation age from 60 to 62 years, accordingly issued an ordinance amending the service conditions of age of superannuation of Government Employees from 60 to 62 years as per the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022 w.e.f. 01.01.2022 vide G.O.ms.No.15 Finance (HR.IV FR & LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 as per the said amendment respondents have to carry out the service regulations and consequential orders pursuant to the said G.O. The 2nd respondent had taken a decision in its Board Meeting and passed a resolution dated 17.03.2022 by adopting the retirement age from 60 years to 62 years as Item No.31 “To consider and approve the enhancement of superannuation age for APTDC Employees (Regular & Contract) from 60 to 62 years as per the Government Orders and ratify the action taken for service continuation of employees (Regular & Contract) who attained age of “60 years” in the months of January and February 2022.

RESOLVED that pursuant to AP (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022 (AP Ordinance No.1 of 2022) the superannuation age of the employees of the Corporation be and is hereby raised from 60 to 62 years duly amending Rule 7 of APTDC Employees (Service) Rule 2001 and also resolved that the action taken in continuation of service of Sri A. Sattar, General Helper Grade-I and Sri D. Amarnath Reddy, Supervisor, whose superannuation is due in the month of January 2022 & February 2022 on attaining their age of 60 years pursuant to the above be and is hereby considered and ratified.”

While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent Corporation has reviewed its earlier decision and held a Board Meeting on 15.07.2022 and passed a resolution (Item No.2) “Confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting: “RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting of the Board of Director held on 17.03.2022 be and hereby received and confirmed except the Item No.31”. During the meeting, the Secretary, Finance Department, opined that the enhanced superannuation age is not applicable for public enterprises. The Chairman apprised the Secretary, Finance Department that the Board was wrongly induced by the then MD to and get ratification for the said item in the previous meeting. After deliberation the Board Resolved that the matter with regard to the item No.31, on Enhancement in the superannuation Age of the employees, shall be referred to the Government of AP for approval. The implementation of the decision shall be stopped till the approval from the Government is received”, by differing their earlier decision. In view of the said decision, the respondents No.2 to 4 directed the petitioners to retire by the end of the month i.e., 30.08.2022 (31.08.2022 is happened to be a public holiday). Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions.

5. During pendency of the a

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top