IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that any amendment to service conditions, including superannuation age, requires prior approval from the State Government as per the governing regulations.

JUDGMENT :

(per Sri Justice G. Narendar)

Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants, learned Government Pleader for Services I and the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.Mineral Development Corporation Limited.

2. The short point that is canvassed by the learned Standing Counsel is that the Appellants are entitled for enhancement of age of superannuation in view of the Board Resolution, dated 30.06.2022.

3. When the matter was listed on the earlier occasion and on the earlier date of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the Board was directed to place on the record the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of the Statutory Corporation i.e., Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation.

4. It is apparent that the right to amend the provisions relating to pay scales, promotions, allowances and all other payments are subject to approval of the State Government. Admittedly, Clause 100 (A) of Memorandum And Articles of Association of The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited, reads as under:

“(A) Notwithstanding anything contained in any of these Articles, the Government may, from time to time, issue such directives as they consider necessary in regard to the conduct of the business of the Corporation of Directors thereof and in like manner may vary and annul any such directive. The Directors shall give immediate effect to directives so issued.

In particular the Government will have the following powers. To call for any information, approve plans, budgets, foreign collaborations, new business and activity, new projects over and above the limits specified by the Govt. Further, the following powers/acts are vested only in the Government. To approve the staffing pattern, rules for recruitment, promotions and disciplinary actions etc., and pay scales allowances and all other payments.”

5. A plain reading of the same would make it amply clear and it necessitates no further elaboration or dilation. The use of the word “to approve” clearly makes it mandatory for the corporation to seek the prior approval of the State Government in terms of the provisions relating to the service conditions of the employees. In this regard, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar issue was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition No.377 of 2023 after examining the law in this regard. Para 3 to 9 of the Judgment read as under:

3) A Coordinate Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a Member, while hearing an Appeal involving a similar issue was pleased to appreciate the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Dayanand Chakrawarty, (2013) 7 SCC 595 and Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik, (2005) 13 SCC 300 was pleased to observe in paragraph Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 as under:

“9. Per contra, learned Counsels appearing for the respondent/Writ Petitioners would reiterate the findings of the learned Single Judge. They would submit that the law in this regard is no more res integra and that the Hon’ble Apex Court has settled the issue in the case of the State of U.P. v. Dayanand Chakrawarty, and Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik. They would submit that the learned Single Judge has rightly placed reliance on the rulings in Dayanand Chakrawarty and has drawn sustenance from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. They would invite the attention of the Court to paras.5, 6 and 7 which narrate the facts involved therein. Paras.5, 6 and 7 read as under:

“5. The questions involved in these appeals are:

5.1. Whether two different ages of superannuation of 58 and 60 years can be prescribed for the employees similarly situated, including members of the same service, solely on the basis of their source of entry in the service.

5.2. Whether the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Retirement on Attaining Age of Superannuation) Regulations, 2005 fixing two different ages of superannuation for similarly situated employees of Jal Nigam are discriminatory and ultra vires under Article 14 of