Employees of a statutory board governed by rules ensuring parity with state government service conditions are entitled to the benefit of an enhanced age of superannuation applicable to government servants, unless the board formally amends its service regulations to explicitly exclude such benefits.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.VENKAT SAILENDRA G

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR SERVICES I (AP)

2.BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO SC For APPCB

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 17.05.2023 issued by the 1st respondent retiring the petitioner with effect from 31.03.2023 though he was working till 17.05.2023, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, without even issuing any notice, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3. The petitioner was appointed in the 1st respondent-Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (for short, ‘the Board’) in the year 1988 as Assistant Environmental Engineer. Thereafter, he was promoted as Environmental Engineer on 17.05.1997 and he was further promoted as Senior Environmental Engineer with effect from 26.08.2011. He was working as Senior Environmental Engineer till his retirement. As per the Service Rules and Regulations published by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.3 M.A., dated 01.01.1979, the age of retirement of the employees of the Board is 55 years. But by following Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Method of appointment and conditions of service of the employees of the State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution Rules, 1978 (for short, ‘the Rules’), the 1st respondent has continued their employees as per the service conditions of the employees of the State Government by extending the age of superannuation upto 60 years. The Board has not amended the rules by extending the age of superannuation of their employees from 55 to either 60 or 62 years. They have only followed the service conditions which are applicable to the Government employees. Accordingly, all the employees of the Board have continued upto the age of 60 years till 2022 before amending the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Ordinance, 2022.

4. Consequent to G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, the 1st respondent-Board has considered and issued proceedings on 07.02.2022 extending the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years. In the said proceedings, it was also referred the approval of Chairman of the Board. Accordingly, all the employees have continued till the date of impugned proceedings i.e., 17.05.2023.

Surprisingly, without notice, based on the clarification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 16.05.2023, the respondents have retired the petitioner from service on 31.03.2023. The said action is contrary to Service Rules more specifically Rule 24 of the Rules. Further, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in an identical situation in T.Saraswathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh ¹2026 SCC OnLine AP 268. Even in the above referred orders, the petitioners therein are also identically situated to that of the petitioner herein. Hence, the petitioner herein is also entitled to the same benefit.

6. Reply to the said contentions, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent-Board has made his submissions based on the averments made in the counter. Though he has not denied about Rule 24 of the Rules, the counsel has specifically contended that this Rule 24 of the Rules is applicable only when there is no specific provision in the Rules. But, in the instant case, Rule 18 of the Rules deals with superannuation of the employees. When there is a specific rule deals with superannuation of the employees, Rule 24 of the Rules is not applicable automatically. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.15,