SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3146

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
S PRABHAKAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 7888/2023 | Writ Petition No: 11488/2023 | Writ Petition No: 15553/2023 | Writ Petition No: 13383/2024 | Writ Petition No: 18279/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N PRAMOD, BALAJI MEDAMALLI, S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
For the Respondents: VINOD KUMAR TARLADA, ANITHA MESA, GP FOR SERVICES

The enhancement of retirement age is a policy matter for the State Government and is not automatically applicable to all educational institutions under its governance without amendments to respective bye-laws.

Headnote:Article 226 of the Constitution of India was invoked wherein the Petitioners challenged the refusal to extend benefits under G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FRandLR) dated 31.01.2022, claiming violation of Articles 14 and 16. Court found the State Government's policies regarding superannuation age, citing various judgments, and declared the petitions were disposed of with directions to consider raising the retirement age subject to the final decision on the governance rules of the Society.

Result: Writ petitions were not entitled for continuation beyond 60 years.

Table of Content
1. the main issue concerns the non-extension of superannuation benefits to the petitioners. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments about discrimination in extending the benefits under g.o.ms.no.15 were presented. (Para 5 , 7)
3. court evaluated the policies and existing rules governing superannuation age. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. court referenced pivotal case law establishing policy matters regarding retirement age. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. the petitions were ultimately disposed of with specific directions for state consideration. (Para 18 , 19)

COMMON ORDER:

The common issue in all the writ petitions is not extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) dated 31.01.2022 in respect of the employees of Respondent-Society as illegal, arbitrary.

2. The Petitioners are working in Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society (herein after referred to as ‘APREIS’ for brevity) in teaching faculty. Originally, the age of superannuation of the employees of the Society, other than Class IV employees, was 58 years. While so, the State Government issued A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Amendment Act, 2014, enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years to the State Government employees vide G.O.Ms.No.147, Finance (HRM IV) Department, dated 30.06.2014.

3. Thereafter, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 27.06.2017, according approval to enhance the age of superannuation to employees working in institutions listed in Schedules IX and X of the A.P.Re-organization Act, 2014 subject to the decision of the Board of Directors/ Managing Committees of the respective legal entities. Subsequently, the State Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.138, dated 08.08.2017, enhancing the age of superannuation of employees in Schedules IX and X of the A.P.State Reorganization Act, 2014 stating that employees shall not be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years and shall be continued up to 60 years. Consequently, the employees of the Respondent-Society continued till the age of 60 years.

4. While so, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022, amending the A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, by enhancing the age of superannuation to 62 years. Consequently, Respondent-Society is said to have been sent a proposal to State Government for enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years on par with State Government employees. Since no further steps are taken on the proposals of the Respondent-Society, the present writ petitions are filed seeking for continuance till the Petitioners attaining the age of 62 years.

5. In the counter filed by APREIS, it is stated that the Society was constituted in the year 1972 and is managing 50 Residential Schools, 10 Residential Junior Colleges and one Residential Degree College in different parts of the State. The APREI Society was registered under the A.P.Public Societies Registration Act. 2001. It is the further plea that Respondent- Society is an autonomous body receiving 100% Grant-in-Aid funds from the State Government and is a distinct entity. It is stated that the State Government had issued a clarification vide circular dated 23.09.2022 stating that the Amendment Act is applicable only to certain categories and that the enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years is not applicable to the employees of Respondent-Society. It is further pleaded that employees working in Respondent-Society are governed by separate Bye-laws and the G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV- FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 cannot be extended to the benefit of the Petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Respondent-Society is a Government entity and there cannot be any discrimination in matters of age of superannuation. It is further pleaded that the benefit of age of superannuation should be extended to the Petitioners also as they are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top