Employees of subordinate bodies like TUDA are not entitled to enhanced superannuation age benefits of State employees, as they are not funded by the State's Consolidated Fund.

ORDER :

1. As the issue in all the Writ Petitions is common, with the consent of counsel appearing for all the parties, the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a Common Order.

2. The Writ Petitions are filed by the Petitioners questioning the action of Respondent No.4 in seeking to retire the Petitioners from their services on attaining age of ‘60 years’ instead of ‘62 years’ as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration & Urban Development Authority Act, 2016.

3. W.P.No.6979 of 2024 is taken up as lead case for description of the parties and narration of facts.

4. In this case, the Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Architectural Draughtsman vide Proceedings bearing Roc.No.2514/C1/85, dated 16.01.1986 on temporary basis and subsequently his services were regularized after declaration of probation in the year 1998.

5. The Petitioner was further promoted as Junior Planning Officer on 01.09.2020. While so, the impugned proceedings dated 30.10.2023 was issued by Respondent No.4 stating that the Petitioner and other similarly situated persons would be retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years during the calendar year 2024.

6. The impugned proceedings proposing to retire the Petitioner and similarly situated persons on attaining the age of 60 years is questioned on the ground that Respondent No.1 had issued G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR & LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 enhancing age of superannuation of the Government employees from ‘60 years’ to ‘62 years’ by amending the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (Act 23 of 1984).

7. It is stated that Respondent No.3-Tirupati Urban Development Authority (for short “TUDA”) in a meeting conducted on 20.03.2022 had passed a resolution enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees from ‘60 years’ to ‘62 years’ in tune with G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022. In that context, it was pleaded that in view of the said resolution, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained. It is further stated that the impugned proceedings run in conflict with Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Development Authorities Service Rules, 1988 (for short “The Rules, 1988”) coupled with Act No.4 of 2022, dated 19.04.2022.

8. In the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4, it is stated that Respondent No.3-TUDA is a statutory authority constituted as per the provisions of A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 (for short “A.P.U.A.D. Act, 1975”) in the year 1981 vide G.O.Ms.No.1178, M.A. Department, dated 06.11.1981. It is further stated that vide G.O.Ms.No.964, M.A. Dept., dated 03.10.1979, the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Staff (Recruitment and Service) Regulations, 1979 were made applicable to TUDA with certain modifications issued vide G.O.Ms.No.368, M.A & UD (B) Department, dated 31.07.1985.

9. It is further stated that TUDA is not a Government Department but an autonom