APHC010573662012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 14272/2012 Between:

Dr.p.v.seetharama Raju, ...PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D GOVERDHANACHARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

3. P GOPALA KRISHNA

4. B SUDHAKAR REDDY AND NEERAJA REDDY The Court made the following Order:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The grievance in the writ petition is that the respondents are not extending the age of superannuation from 58 to 65 years as mandated by the University Grants Commission Regulations dated 30.06.2010. The petitioner was working as a teaching faculty in various colleges in the State.

3. The petitioner is being paid the University Grants Commission Scales. He claims that the age of superannuation should also be extended in accordance with the guidelines of the University Grants Commission and regulations of the University Grants Commission dated 30.06.2010. The present Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner when he was attaining the age of superannuation.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, relying on the instructions, submitted that the 6th Central Pay Commission constituted by the Government of India for implementation of Revised University Grants Commission pay scales to the teachers working in Universities and Degree Colleges has been duly extended. It is also submitted that the University Grants Commission has recommended the current age of superannuation be maintained. He submitted that the age of superannuation was not enhanced for any of the teaching faculty and thus the request of the petitioner was not considered by the State. The Government has considered the extension of service up to two (02) years on a case-to-case basis only insofaras Medical Specialists and Scientists are concerned. As the petitioner does not fall under the said category, the case of the petitioner was not considered.

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

20.01.2025 PNS