Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, T. VINOD KUMAR, JJ.
J. Nagabhushana Reddy S/o J. Busi Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 18901, 18906, 18907, 18912, 18913, 19381, 19382, 19457, 23875 of 2015
Decided On : 27-04-2021
A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 -Section 3-A(2) - Appointed in High Court - Retirement/superannuation – Challenged - All petitioners were appointed in High Court for composite State of Andhra Pradesh in various capacities and their details as to date of appointment, post in which they were first appointed, post they were holding as (the date when composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into new State and residuary State of Andhra Pradesh) and their respective dates of retirement/superannuation -Writ Petitions petitioners challenge respective notices issued to each of them (referred to in Col. No. 6 of the Table given above) by High Court for State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh indicating their respective dates of superannuation and contend that they are contrary to Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Superannuation) Act, 1984 and seek a direction to said High Court to continue them in service till each of them attains the age of 60 years - Whether provisions of Section 77 of A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 could not have been invoked before formation of separate High Court for State of Andhra Pradesh i.e. before as is contended by respondents? – Held, Court hold that petitioners can be granted better pensionary benefits, subject to what is stated below, because these Writ petitions were all filed before each of petitioners attained age of 58 years of service in 2015, in view of sinterim orders passed therein that retirement of each of petitioners shall be subject further orders to be passed in Writ Petitions - Court accordingly direct that petitioners shall be notionally deemed to have rendered service till they attained age of 60 years in the High Court of Judicature for State of Andhra Pradesh and said notional service shall be taken into account for purpose of calculation of their pensionary benefits by virtue of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3-A of A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as amended by Act 4 of 2014 - State of Andhra Pradesh and sHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh shall calculate said benefits and pay same to petitioners within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order - Writ Petitions are allowed.
ORDER :
1. Since the issues raised in these Writ Petitions are connected, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. All the petitioners were appointed in the High Court for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh in various capacities and their details as to date of appointment, post in which they were first appointed, post they were holding as on 02.06.2014 (the date when the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh) and their respective dates of retirement/superannuation (at 58 years of age) are as under:
| S. No. | W.P. No. | Date of Appointment and Post in which Appointed | Post being held as on 2.6.2014 | Date of Superannuati on as per law prevailing on 2.6.2014 i.e. 58 years | Date of Order issued notifying the date of retirement |
| 1. | 18901/2015 | 02.04.1981 Copyist | Section Officer | 30.06.2015 | Roc. No. 1713/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 23.02.2015 |
| 2. | 18906/2015 | 06.07.1984 Copyist | Court Officer | 30.06.2015 | Roc. No. 1715/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 21.02.2015 |
| 3. | 18907/2015 | 09.02.1976 Copyist | Assistant Registrar | 31.07.2015 | Roc. No. 3896/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 16.04.2015 |
| 4. | 18912/2015 | 10.10.1983 Assistant | Assistant Registrar | 30.06.2015 | Roc. No. 1712/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 23.02.2015 |
| 5. | 18913/2015 | 05.07.1984 Copyist | Court Officer | 31.08.2015 | Roc. No. 4448/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 30.04.2015 |
| 6. | 19381/2015 | 07.07.1984 Copyist | Section Officer | 30.06.2015 | Roc. No. 1716/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 23.02.2015 |
| 7. | 19382/2015 | 23.03.1985 Assistant | Court Officer | 30.06.2015 | Roc. No. 1714/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 23.02.2015 |
| 8. | 19457/2015 | 01.04.1981 Attender | Assistant | 30.06.2015 | Roc. No. 1717/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 23.02.2015 |
| 9. | 23875/2015 | 09.07.1984 Assistant | Section Officer | 31.07.2015 | Roc. No. 3898/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 16.04.2015 |
3. The petitioners filed the Writ Petitions, before they were superannuated on the respective dates when each of them would complete 58 years of age.
4. In these Writ Petitions petitioners challenge the respective notices issued to each of them (referred to in Col. No. 6 of the Table given above) by the High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh indicating their respective dates of superannuation and contend that they are contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Superannuation) Act, 1984 and seek a direction to the said High Court to continue them in service till each of them attains the age of 60 years.
The interim orders granted in June 2015 in these cases
5. In all these cases, a Division Bench presided over by the then Acting Chief Justice had passed an interim order on 30-06-2015 in W.P. Nos. 18901, 18906, 18907, 18912, 18913, 19381, 19382 and 19457 of 2015 and on 31.07.2015 in W.P. No. 23875 of 2015 that retirement of each of the petitioners shall be subject further orders to be passed in the Writ Petitions.
The case of the petitioners
6. In brief, the contentions of the petitioners are:
(ii) as per Rule 21(1) of the said Rules, the ‘Fundamental Rules, the Subsidiary Rules thereunder, Civil Services Regulation and other Rules applicable to employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall govern the members of the Service.
(iii) that the age of superannuation of employees is governed by the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 and it had prescribed in Section 3(i), the age of superannuation of a Government employ
The court affirmed that all Class-IV employees must retire at 60 years, rejecting arbitrary distinctions based on engagement dates as discriminatory under Article 14.
(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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (Act 23 of 1984) applies only to specific categories of government ....
The High Court cannot order compulsory retirement of judicial officers; such authority rests with the Governor based on the High Court's binding recommendations after assessment of fitness for servic....
The determination of superannuation age is a policy decision of the government, requiring its approval for amendments, and courts cannot intervene without legal authority.
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
