Back
SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Munnagi Srinivas Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra – Respondent
ORDER :
Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is the same, all these writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.
2. Petitioners, employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation, filed these writ petitions, impugning the memos issued by the respective Warehouse Managers/officers intimating the date of superannuation on completion of 60 years, without extending the benefit of the age of superannuation up to 62 years, in pursuance of, the resolution passed by the Board of Directors in 208th Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 14.03.2022 and withdrawal of earlier resolution in 216th Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 29.12.2023, as illegal and arbitrary.
3. a) The averments, in brief, are that the Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation (for short “the Corporation”), was established in terms of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 for the purpose of warehousing of agricultural produce and certain other commodities. Post bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Corporation was listed as Government Welfare Organization in Entry No.3 in Schedule-IX of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 with 50% State Government a
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....
The determination of superannuation age is a policy decision of the government, requiring its approval for amendments, and courts cannot intervene without legal authority.
whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall n....
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 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.
Employees of a residential institution governed by statutory regulations are entitled to the same superannuation benefits as government employees unless explicitly stated otherwise.
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 ....
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 ....
(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
