IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.Manmadha Rao, J.
B.Peddanna - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 15449 of 2022
Decided On : 08-08-2023
Writ Petition - Entitlement to Retirement Age - G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR.IV.FR & LR) Department, dtd. 31/1/2022 - The judgment discusses 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, to the employees of the DRDAs. It also considers the legal aspects of Regulation No.12 of Model Service Regulations and the previous court decisions on similar matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Watchman promoted to Attender, sought a writ of mandamus to retire at the age of 62, citing G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022. The respondents initiated his retirement at 60, contrary to previous court decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner entitled to continue in service till 62 years as per Regulation No.12 of Model Service Regulations and allowed the writ petition, declaring the proceedings for retirement as illegal and arbitrary.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, to the employees of the DRDAs and the petitioner's entitlement to retirement age based on previous court decisions and regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years as per G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, should be applicable to the petitioner, as per the A.P.P.E (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022, and previous court decisions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned proceedings were declared illegal and arbitrary, and the respondents were directed to continue the petitioner's service by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022.
JUDGMEN
1. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of mandamus by declaring that the petitioner is entitled to retire on his attaining the age of 62 years and further to direct the respondents to extend the service of petitioner up to the age of 62 years by continuing his service in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR.IV.FR & LR) Department, dtd. 31/1/2022 on par with the Government Employees and pass such other orders.
2. Heard Sri N. Madhava Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Watchman in the year 1984 in District Rural Development Agency, Ananthapuram District. Thereafter, he promoted as Attender in the year 1994, and he is continuing in the same post till now. While he was working in the said post the 4th respondent issued proceedings vide No.54/G/2020, dtd. 6/4/2022 through which he was initiated to retire on 31/5/2022 from his service. While the matter stood thus the Government of Andhra Pradesh took a decision to enhance the age of superannuation of the Employees working under the Government. As per the said decision the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.15 dtd. 31/1/2022, wherein enhanced the age of superannuation of Government Employees from 60 years to 2 years as per the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022 (for short "A.P.(Amendment) Ordinance, 2022") and accordingly an amendment has been issued to that extent. The said amendment came into force on 1/1/2022 and all the Government Employees were allowed to work, even though they crossed 60 years of age in view of the above said amendment. In similar circumstances, when the Government of Andhra Pradesh enhanced the age of superannuation in the year 2014 from 58 years to 60 years, at that point of time, the employees working in the District Rural Development Agencies were asked to retire and they approached this Court by way of filing W P No.21304 of 2017 and this Court allowed the said writ petition by declaring that the employees working in District Rural Development Agencies are entitled to be continued in their service as per Regulation No.12 of Model Service Regulations till they attain the age of superannuation on par with the Government employees. Even though the petitioner is entitled and eligible to be continued in his service till attains the age of 62 years as per the Regulation No.12 of Model Service Regulations, which were issued through G.O.Ms.No.135 dtd. 8/3/1991 and as per the order of this Court in WP No.21304 of 10Rs. 7 the respondents without considering the said legal aspect, illegally issued the proceedings. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. During pendency of the above W.P.No.15449 of 2022, this Court vide order, dtd. 26/5/2022, granted interim direction as under:
"...Accordingly, the petitioner shall be continued up to the age of Superannuation of "62" years if otherwise entitled as per law pending further orders in this writ petition. The respondents shall file their counter..."
5. Since the respondents have not complied with the above order, the petitioner has filed the Contempt Case No.3239 of 2022 against the respondents in W.P.No.15449 of 2022.
6. Per contra, the respondent No.2 filed vacate stay petition vide I.A No.2 of 2022 in W.P.No.15449 of 2022, while denying all the allegations made in the petition, contended that the Government considering the employees recruited in earlier years and put-in considerably long service felt necessary to have service regulation to thee directly retired employees of the DRDAs. Accordingly the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.135 PR & RD-(RD.II) Department, dtd. 8/3/1991 communicated Model Service Regulations and directed the DRDAs to frame the bye laws in accordance with those model service
State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Dayanand Chakrawarty and others
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Model Service Regulations and the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, to the Writ Petitioner's case, based ....
The amendment to superannuation age applies to the petitioners as they are covered under service regulations, ensuring parity with government 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 determination of superannuation age is a policy decision of the government, requiring its approval for amendments, and courts cannot intervene without legal authority.
Employees of autonomous bodies like the DRDA cannot claim parity with state government employees regarding retirement benefits unless explicitly provided by law or policy, and changes in retirement a....
The age of superannuation is governed by the specific bylaws of an institution, dictated by policy decisions of the State 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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.