JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu)

This writ appeal is filed questioning the interim order dated

31.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.33830 of 2022.

2. This Court has heard Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Motupalli Vijaykumar as instructed by Sri M.Venkateswara Rao and learned Government Pleader for Services for the respondents.

3. The order in this case also relates to the enhancement of the age of superannuation. The petitioners filed a writ petition claiming that they are entitled to the enhanced age of retirement of 62 years while questioning that the action of the respondents in attempting to retire the petitioners from service of 62 years is incorrect. The interim order was granted directing the respondents to continue the writ petitioners in service till they attain the age of 62 years.

4. Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for the appellant argues that it is a fact that initially the Board of the appellant organization decided to enhance the age to 62 years and a resolution was also passed enhancing the age of employees to 62 years from 60 years. But, later, basing upon the Government instructions including the finance departments memo dated 23.09.2022, the respondents had a relook in the entire issue. He points out that in July, 2023 a fresh resolution was passed again limiting the age of superannuation to 60 years only by superseding the earlier resolution enhancing the age to 62 years. Apart from this, he also submits that basing upon the judgment in the case of G.Rama Mohan Rao and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1, this Court in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch held that only if the request of the Corporations for amendment of bye laws are approved by the State Government and the rules and bye laws are amended pursuant thereto, the enhanced age would be applicable. He points out that this finding in the case of G.Rama Mohan Rao (1 supra) was approved in the subsequent writ appeals which were also by a co-ordinate Bench and therefore, he submits that learned single Judge committed an error. He therefore prays that the appeal should be allowed.

1 2017 SCC Online Hyd 54

5. In response to this, learned senior counsel for the respondents Sri M.Vijay Kumar argues the matter and points out that the appellant is an independent Corporation and it has its own Board of Directors. The Board of Directors have passed a resolution in April, 2022 enhancing the age to 62 years. This was again revisited by the very same Board of Directors who have passed a further resolution in July, 2023, which was communication to all the employees also. He submits that there is no need or necessary for the appellant to seek the approval of the Government as it is an independent Corporation. It is his contention that the interpretation of the Government either in the circular memo dated 22.09.2022 or otherwise is irrelevant, once the Board of Directors have independently exercised their mind to the enhanced age. It is his contention that the rules and regulations governing the APIIC permit the said enhancement. He also points out that the subsequent events including the subsequent resolution cannot be used to judge the correctness of the learned single Judge’s order. He points out that the single Judges order is dated 31.10.2022 and the subsequent resolution bringing the age down to 60 years is in July, 2023. Therefore, he contends that this factor cannot be taken into account for denying the relief to the writ petitioners.

6. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that this is one among the long line of cases which have come before this Court with the enhancement of age of retirement by the Government.

7. In the case on hand, it is a fact that the Board of Directors of the appellant enhanced the age of superannuation of its employees from 60 to 62 years. This is later sought to be withdrawn by a resolution of July, 2023.

8. The fact also remains that in the case of G.Rama Mohan Rao (1 sup