IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Munnagi Srinivas Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 13372, 11491, 14031, 14510, 14752 and 15491 of 2024
Decided on : 14-10-2024
Superannuation - Employees of Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation - Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962; Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding age of superannuation and the authority of the Board of Directors, concluding that the petitioners had no right to extend their service beyond 60 years.
Fact of the Case:
Employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation challenged the memos regarding their superannuation at 60 years, arguing for an extension to 62 years based on a government resolution and subsequent amendments to the relevant acts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the age of superannuation for the employees was governed by the Corporation's regulations, which set it at 60 years, and that the Board's resolution to extend it was later revoked, thus the petitioners had no legitimate claim to continue beyond this age.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to continue in service until the age of 62 years as per the government order, and whether the revocation of the Board's resolution was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the employees of the Corporation are not automatically entitled to the benefits of the amended superannuation age unless the Corporation's regulations are amended accordingly, and the revocation of the resolution was within the Board's authority.
Result: All writ petitions are dismissed.
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 and 50% Central Government share. The employees of 2nd respondent are the persons appointed to the posts, in connection with the affairs of the State. The Government of Andhra Pradesh promulgated an ordinance dated 31.01.2022 by amending the provision of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984. By virtue of said amendment, age of superannuation to Government employees was enhanced from 60 years to 62 years with effect from 01.01.2022. The Government also extended the benefit to the Aided Private Educational institutions under G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 12.06.2023.
b) Petitioners’ association appealed to 2nd respondent-Corporation to extend the said benefit to the employees of the Corporation. The 208th meeting of the Board of Directors held on 14.03.2022, it was resolved to adopt G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department dated 31.01.2022.
c) Be that as it may, the 3rd respondent issued Circular Memo.No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.09.2022 not to give effect to provisions of the amended Act 2 of 2022, without assigning valid or substantive reasons. Thereafter, in 216th Meeting of the Board of Directors held on 29.12.2023, at Item No.13, the Board has resolved to withdraw its previous resolution adopting G.O.Ms.No.15, held in its 208th Board of Directors Meeting held on 14.03.2022.
d) Earlier when the Government extended age of superannuation of employees from 58 to 60, the same was not extended to employees of different corporations. Writ petitions were filed and Division Bench of composite high Court disposed of the same by a common order dated 07-3-2017 G.Rama Mohan Rao and another Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 27.06.2017 was issued enhancing the age of superannuation to the employees of different Corporations in Schedule IX and X of A.P.Reorganisation Act. Later one of G.O., vide G.O.Ms.No.138 Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department dated 08.08.2017 was issued.
e) Despite amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, in the year 2022, the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation is not extended to the employees of the petitioner’s Corporation. The petitioners, after receipt of intimation regarding the date of superannuation, by different memos, made representations to consider their case in terms of the amended Act 4 of 2022, however, the same was not considered. Hence, the above writ petitions are filed.
4. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the Corporation. It was contended, interalia, that the determination of the age of superannuation is a policy decision. The Corporation has its service Regulations viz., APSWC Employees Regulations 1962 made under Sec 42(1) of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962. The age
G.Rama Mohan Rao Vs. State of the State of Andhra Pradesh and another
A.Veerraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
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....
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.