Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 21234
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Nyapathy Vijay, J
Y. Sita Bhaskari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 9834/2024|WRIT PETITION NO: 9075/2024|WRIT PETITION NO: 9535/2024|WRIT PETITION NO: 10754/2024
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Superannuation and Retirement Age
Act Referred
Constitution of India: Art.226, Art.14, Art.16, Art.32, Art.142
AP Cooperative Societies Act
Headnote
(B) Service Law - Age of Superannuation - Principle that age of retirement is a policy matter within the domain of the employer/State Government - Courts cannot prescribe a different age of superannuation or substitute policy decisions - No vested right of employees to continuation in service beyond the age prescribed by regulations.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, employees of the A.P. Cooperative Oil Seeds Grower's Federation Limited, challenged a Board Resolution dated 25.01.2024 which reversed an earlier resolution dated 01.02.2022 that had enhanced the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years. The earlier enhancement was pursuant to a Government Order (G.O.Ms.No.15) amending the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation) Act, 1984. The petitioners sought to continue in service until age 62. The respondents argued the Board was competent to amend service regulations considering financial status.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Board had power under Clause-4 of the Service Regulations to amend regulations, including withdrawing the enhanced retirement age. The Court found no vested right of employees to continue till age 62, as the benefit was subject to Board Resolution and Regulations. The Court dismissed the petitions, relying on Supreme Court precedents that age of superannuation is a policy matter exclusively within the domain of the employer/State Government, and courts cannot interfere with such policy decisions.
Issues: (i) Whether the Board Resolution withdrawing the enhanced age of superannuation from 62 to 60 years was valid and within the Board's competence. (ii) Whether the employees had a vested right to the enhanced age of superannuation. (iii) Whether the court could intervene in the policy decision regarding age of superannuation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's reasoning was that the Board had explicit power under Clause 4.1 of the Service Regulations to amend, alter, or cancel regulations from time to time. The enhancement of retirement age is a policy decision and employees have no vested right to a particular retirement age. Courts cannot substitute their own view for the employer's policy decision regarding superannuation age. Reliance was placed on V.M. Gadre v. M.G. Diwan (1996) 3 SCC 454, Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala (2023), and New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. B.D. Singhal (2021).
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. Raghava Reddy, Naga Chandrika.D
For the Respondents: GP For Services I, GP For Services II, P. Nagendra Reddy
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of writ petitions challenging board resolution reducing superannuation age from 62 to 60 years. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments of petitioners and respondents on board's power to change superannuation age. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. board's power to amend service regulations and lack of vested right for employees to age 62. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. courts cannot interfere with policy decisions on age of superannuation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. writ petitions dismissed as no case made out. (Para 14) |
COMMON ORDER:
These writ petitions are filed questioning the Board Resolution dated 25.01.2024, whereunder the age of Superannuation was amended from 62 to 60 years as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The petitioners are employees working in various designations of Respondent No.3-A.P. Cooperative Oil Seeds Grower’s Federation Limited, Vijayawada.
3. As per the Board Resolution dated 01.02.2022, the age of Superannuation of the employees of Respondent No.3 was enhanced from 60 to 62 years pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR-IV-FR & LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 amending the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation) Act, 1984. Subsequently, vide board resolution dated 25.01.2024, the age of superannuation was reversed to 60 years and the Board Resolution dated 01.02.2022 was withdrawn. The service regulations of the Respondent No.3 enables the Board to amend Clause-4 of the Service Regulations as it deems fit. As the Petitioners are losing out the benefit of enhancement of age of Superannuation of 62 years, the present writ petitions are filed.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that vide impugned notification withdrawing the benefit of enhancement of age of Superannuation cannot be sustained and the Petitioners are entitled for the said relief of continuing till the age of 62 years.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Board is competent to take appropriate decisions, considering the financial status of the Board and as the Board had taken a conscious decision to withdraw the resolution dated 01.02.2022, the Petitioners cannot have any vested right for enhancing the age of Superannuation of 62 years. It is further stated that the resolution dated 25.01.2024 need not carry the logical end as the amendment to the Service Regulations.
6. Heard Sri V. Bhargava Reddy and D. Naga Chandrika, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services – I.
7. The clause-4 of the Service Regulations of the Respondent-Federation enables the Board to amend the Service Regulations from time to time. Clause-4 of the Service Regulations and Bye-Laws is extracted below:-
4.0 CHANGE IN REGULATIONS:
4.1 The Board shall be competent to add to these regulations and/or alter, relax or cancel, all or any of the regulations from time to time and also give effect to them from such date/dates as it deems fit.
8. Under the impugned resolution, the enhanced age of Superannuation was withdrawn and the same is well within the power conferred in the service regulations referred above.
9. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, nothing has been pointed out with regard to the power of the Board to withdraw the earlier resolution. In the absence of such plea, the writ petition seeking to enforce the resolution dated 01.02.2022 cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the employees do not have any vested right to continue till the age of 62 years and the same is being subject to the Board Resolution and Regulations.
10. Apart from that, enhancement of the age is a policy decision as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.M. Gadre v. M.G. Diwan and Others , (1996) 3 SCC 454 that even while exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it would not be permissible for the Court to substitute all the existing service conditions. The relevant portion at paragraph 10 is extracted below:
“....While exercising jurisdiction under Article 3
