The amendment to superannuation age applies to the petitioners as they are covered under service regulations, ensuring parity with government employees.

COMMON ORDER:

The common question in all the three writ petitions is that the Petitioners are seeking for continuation of their service till attaining the age of 62 years in terms of the amendment brought into the Andhra Pradesh Public Employee (Regulation of Superannuation) Act, 1984 vide G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV- FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022.

2. The Petitioners are employees of Mahatma Jyothiba Phule Andhra Pradesh Backward Class Welfare Residential Institution Society (for brevity „MJPAPBCWRIS‟). It is stated that the Society is under the control of the State Government and pursuant to the Amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employee (Regulation of Superannuation) Act, 1984, the age of superannuation was also enhanced to the employees of the Respondent-Society vide G.O.Ms.No.60, School Education (TRG) Department, dated 27.07.2017 and by virtue of the said G.O., the Petitioners were continuing till the age of 60 years. It is stated that the service regulations were framed by the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.68, Backward Classes Welfare (B) Department, dated 10.05.2018. As the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022, amending Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Superannuation) Act, 1984 by enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years for Government employees, the Petitioners are seeking for continuation of their services till the age of 62 years on par with Government employees in view of Rule 14 thereof. As the Petitioners were sought to be superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, the present writ petitions were filed.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent-Society (MJPAPBCWRIS), it is stated that the amendment brought in by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 is not applicable to the employees of the Respondent-Society. It was contended that the State Government issued Circular Memo No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV, Finance Department, dated 23.09.2022 stating that the enhancement of age of superannuation is not applicable to employees other than the Government employees. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot take the benefit of the said amendment. It is further contended that the State Government has general power of superintendence and control over the administration of the Society and in the absence of any specific consent from the State Government; the Petitioners are not entitled for the enhancement of age of superannuation. In the counter affidavit, reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in G.Rama Mohan Rao and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh , rep. By its Principal Secretary and Chairman, Agricultural Marketing and Co-operative Department and another , 2017 (3) ALT 1 wherein it was held that consent of the State Government was required for enhancing age of superannuation.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in G.Rama Mohan Rao’ case (1 supra) has no application to the facts of this case as Rules and Service Regulations were issued in the year 2018 vide G.O.Rt.No.68, BC Welfare (B) Department, dated 10.05.2018 and the superannuation of the Petitioners should be construed only with reference to the said Service Regulations and none else. It is contended that once the Petitioners‟ age of superannuation was placed on par with Government employees, the contention of the Respondents that in spite of the said Rule, the Petitioners are to be retired at the age of 60 years is unsustainable. It is contended that the action of the Respo