AP High Court Rejects Plea to Increase Retirement Age for Corporation Employees, Cites Policy Domain

AMARAVATI: The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling on service law, has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by employees of various state-owned corporations seeking an enhancement of their superannuation age from 60 to 62 years. Justice Nyapathy Vijay held that the age of retirement is a policy matter within the executive's domain and that courts cannot grant relief in anticipation of a government committee's decision.

The court affirmed that without a formal amendment to the service rules, which requires government concurrence, employees have no vested right to an increased retirement age, even if their corporation's board has passed a resolution in its favor.

Background of the Dispute

The case, led by Yelduti Srinivas vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh , involved employees from entities like the A.P. State Housing Corporation and A.P. State Warehousing Corporation. The petitioners argued that they should be granted the same benefit extended to state government employees under G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, which raised the superannuation age to 62.

Following this government order, the boards of the respective corporations passed resolutions to adopt the new retirement age and forwarded the proposals to the State Government for approval. However, the government later rejected these proposals.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Contentions:

* The corporations' boards had already resolved to increase the retirement age to 62.

* The State Government's rejection of their proposal via a letter dated 18.07.2024 was arbitrary and failed to consider the corporations' need for experienced staff and their financial viability.

* A new government committee was constituted on 22.08.2025 to examine the feasibility of this very issue. Therefore, they should be allowed to continue in service pending the committee's recommendations.

Respondents' Stance:

* The corporations later withdrew their initial resolutions, citing their financial status and paucity of funds, and passed new resolutions maintaining the retirement age at 60.

* The State Government's rejection was a valid policy decision based on several factors, including financial implications.

* The age of superannuation is a policy matter, and courts should not interfere.

High Court's Analysis: A Matter of Policy and Rules

Justice Nyapathy Vijay systematically dismantled the petitioners' arguments, grounding the decision in established legal principles and the specific service rules of the corporations.

The court highlighted Rule 4 of the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited General Service Rules, which mandates that any amendment to the rules requires the "prior approval of the Board and Government."

> "As on date, there is no amendment to the Service Rules as there is no concurrence of the State Government for enhanced age of superannuation," the judgment noted. "It is to be noted that the age of superannuation is a condition of service and as per the Rules, any amendment requires concurrence of the State Government."

The court firmly stated that the formation of a committee to study the issue does not create a legal right for the employees.

> "The constitution of a Committee... to examine the feasibility of enhancement of age of superannuation, per se, cannot be a ground for seeking enhancement... this Court, in anticipation of a decision of the Committee, cannot grant any relief to the Petitioners."

Citing several Supreme Court precedents, including Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala and New Okhal Industrial Development Authority v. B.D. Singhal , the court reiterated that determining the age of superannuation is a core policy function.

> "It is well-settled that the age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of the State Government. It is not for the courts to prescribe a different age of retirement," the court observed, quoting the Supreme Court.

The Final Verdict

The High Court concluded that continuing the employees beyond the existing superannuation age of 60 would be contrary to their current service conditions and legally impermissible. Finding no merit in the petitioners' claims, the court dismissed all the writ petitions. The decision clarifies that employees of state corporations cannot automatically claim benefits extended to government employees and that any change to their service conditions must strictly adhere to the prescribed rules, including mandatory government approval.