Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Piridi Prakasa Rao vs The State Of Ap on 5 August, 2019
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
WRIT PETITION No.1432 of 2019
ORDER:
1. The petitioners, who are the teaching and non-teaching staff in fourth respondent school being run by third respondent Society, seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents, particularly respondents 2 to 4, in not enhancing their age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years despite first respondent had enhanced the same and not considering the petitioners' representations as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to respondents 2 to 4 to enhance their age of superannuation to 60 years.
2. The petitioners' case succinctly is thus:
(a) Second respondent is a company under the control and maintenance of the Government of India and it provides certain amenities to its employees, one of which is the provision for education to the children of employees. Third respondent is a reputed society at Visakhapatnam and has good name in successfully managing the schools and colleges at Visakhapatnam. Respondents 2 & 3 have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (for short, 'the MOA') dated 03.04.1986 whereby third respondent established fourth respondent-school in the Visakhapatnam Township (Ukkunagaram) and all the amenities and requirements are provided by second respondent. The school is managed by third respondent with the help UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 2 of Local Managing Committee with the nominee of CMD, RINL/VSP as its Chairman. As per MOA, the teaching staff will be selected and appointed by third respondent for imparting education to the children of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (for short, 'the VSP') employees and the children of employees of fourth respondent. The selection of teaching and non-teaching staff will be done by third respondent.
Most importantly, in the MOA it is stipulated that the scales of pay, other allowances and benefits are provided to the staff of fourth respondent as per the A.P. State Government Rules.
(b) Petitioner No.1 was appointed as "Physical Education Trainee" on 25.10.1985 and after completion of probation his service was regularized. Petitioners 2 to 4 were appointed as "Secondary Grade Assistants" on 11.07.1988, 05.07.1989 and 17.06.1987 respectively. Fifth petitioner was appointed as Peon on 15.03.1988 and he was later promoted as Record Assistant. The age of superannuation of petitioners as per the rules and regulations maintained by first respondent and as per MOA between respondents 2 & 3 was 58 years. However, first respondent enacted Act 4 of 2014 thereby enhancing the age of superannuation of all Government employees from 58 years to 60 years and the same has to be applied to the petitioners also, in as much as in the MOA it was categorically mentioned that service rules and pays of the employees of fourth respondent will be as per the rules of first respondent. Despite Act 4 of 2014 was enacted, third respondent did not consider to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioners. They submitted several UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 3 representations, but of no avail. Respondents 2 & 3 were escaping by mutually shifting the burden of enhancing the age on each other. It is submitted that the other State owned Corporations, Companies, Societies and other institutions have already issued orders enhancing the age of superannuation of their respective employees except the respondents 2 & 3.
Hence, the Writ Petition.
3. Second respondent filed counter inter alia contending as follows:
(a) The writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini being not maintainable in law since third respondent Society and fourth respondent-school, wherein the petitioners are working, do not fall under the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence, they are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Further, the petitioners are employees of a school run by a Society whose byelaws have no force of a statute. Hence, there is no statutory violation committed by respondents 3 & 4 to seek writ of mandamus. The petitioners are not employees of second respondent and hence, no relief can be claimed against it. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in lumini.
(b) Second respondent is not one of the listed companies/corporations, Societies and other institutions listed under Schedule IX and X of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 and as such the orders and rules of first respondent do not apply and bind second UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 4 respondent. On that ground also the petitioners cannot seek for enhancement of age and superannuation on par with the companies listed in Schedule IX.
(c) Second respondent is an organization under the control of Central Government, whereas fourth respondent-school is maintained by third respondent Society which is registered under the Societies Act, 1860; therefore, respondents 3 & 4 do not fit into the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Third respondent has its own byelaws and therefore, the State Government rules are not applicable to them automatically. Those byelaws of third respondent have no statutory force and hence, not enforceable by a writ.
(d) As per MOA, school is run by third respondent Society and second respondent has only entered into MOA with a benevolent purpose and granting some funds under the terms of the MOA.
Clause 10 of MOA clearly stipulates that the staff employed by the Society for the school will be working for the period of agreement entered upon. Respondents 2 & 3 have a subsisting contract only for five years with effect from 01.06.2014. Further, clause 11 of MOA states that only pay and other allowances are as per the State Government scales, but it does not stipulate that all the service conditions of the State Government employees such as age of retirement, pension etc., are applicable. It is further stated that though the MOA was entered into for the benefit of children of the employees working with second respondent company, presently only 47 out of UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 5 2445 students in the school are the children of employees of second respondent and the remaining 2398 students are the children of outsiders, despite, second respondent has been arranging funds with a benevolent intention. The employees of the Society are not the State Government employees and the State is not providing any grant-in-aid to the schools.
4. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed counter denying the writ petition averments and contending thus:
(a) Respondent No.3 agreed to run the school mainly for the children of employees of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and accordingly on 03.04.1986 MOA was entered into between respondent Nos.2 and 3 for establishment of respondent No.4-school in the name and style of Visakha Vimala Vidyalam for 5 years commencing from the academic year 1984-85 and renewable on mutual consent. The school is being managed by respondent No.3 in the own building and furniture provided by respondent No.2. The selection and appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff will be made by respondent No.4 only. As per the recitals of MOA, respondent No.2 has to bear the recurring and non-recurring expenditure towards teaching and non-
teaching staff for 5 years. There is no aid or grant to the school till today either from the Centre or State Government. Subsequently, MOA was extended from time to time with certain mutually agreed terms and conditions. The latest extension was on 21.01.2015 for 5 years with effect from 01.06.2014. As per clause No.11 of MOA, UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 6 their scale of pay, other allowances and benefits are as followed by A.P. State Government from time to time to the teaching and non- teaching staff without pension, who are employed on or before 31.05.2014. The teaching and non-teaching staff recruited on or after 01.06.2014 will be appointed on a consolidated pay as per Clause No.23, respondent No.2 is at liberty to terminate the agreement despite respondent No.3 having complied all the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement by giving advance notice of two academic years. Therefore, if respondent No.2 terminates the agreement, respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot run the school with the present high salaries to its staff both teaching and non-teaching as it comes around one lakh rupees per month to the senior staff.
(b) As stated supra, no grant or aid is extended by Centre or State Government and respondent No.4 is purely a private un-aided educational institution and therefore Act No.4 of 2014 cannot be made applicable to the teaching and non-teaching staff of respondent No.4- school. The said Act is applicable only to Government employees but not the employees working in private organizations or institutions.
(c) Representations were received from the employees for enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years but weighing all facts and employees the petitioners were informed about the non feasibility to accept their request.
(d) On the above grounds, respondent No.2 in its reply letter dated 10.01.2017 to the request made by respondent No.4-school, UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 7 dated 07.01.2017, did not agree to rise the superannuation age. Further, as per G.O.Ms. No.102, dated 27.06.2017, the specific decision to enhance the superannuation age from 58 to 60 years to the employees working in institutions listed in IX and X schedules was left to the discretion of the Board of Directors/Managing Committees of the respective institutions and it was further mentioned in the said G.O. that while doing so, the institutions shall take into consideration their financial positions and genuineness of their need to enhance the age of superannuation.
(e) It is further submitted, 9 members of the staff of respondent No.4 accepted their retirement age and they were retired from service. Owing to the financial burden the present appointments are being made on ad-hoc basis on consolidated pay for the tenure of MOA and for all these reasons the writ petition is not maintainable and hence the writ petition may be dismissed.
5. The petitioners filed reply affidavit denying the counter averments of the respondents. The petitioners pleaded that the respondent No.4 never informed the petitioners that the request made by the petitioners for enhancing the age of superannuation will not be considered and it is only in their counters that they have, for the first time, pleaded to that effect. The petitioners further contended that the additional financial burden that the respondents have to bear in case the age of superannuation of the petitioners were to be increased, UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 8 cannot be a ground to reject their legitimate request since they have been working for more than 30 years.
6. Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned standing counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, and Sri G.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
7. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for the petitioners Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy is that 2nd respondent is a state owned public sector undertaking and it runs the 4th respondent school through the 3rd respondent society by granting funds and therefore the employees of 4th respondent shall be deemed to be the employees of 2nd respondent and hence they in turn shall be deemed to be the State Government employees. The State has, through amendment Act 4 of 2014 to the parent legislation i.e., A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (for short, 'Act 1984') enhanced the age of superannuation of Government employees from 58 years to 60 years and therefore the petitioners who are the state government employees are entitled to the said benefit.
(a) It is further argued that in the lines of amendment to Act 1984, Section 78-A of the Education Act, 1982 was also amended and the age of superannuation of the teaching and non-teaching staff of UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 9 aided private educational institutions is enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. Since the petitioners are of teaching and non-teaching staff of 4th respondent school run under the aegis of respondent Nos.2 and 3, they shall be superannuated only after completion of 60 years of age. He placed reliance on the order dated 14.09.2015 of this Court in W.P. No.25312 of 2015.
8. Per contra, learned standing counsel for 2nd respondent would vehemently argue that the petitioners are only the employees of 4th respondent school run by the 3rd respondent society and the 2nd respondent has nothing to do with them. By virtue of MOA between 2nd and 3rd respondents, 2nd respondent has only been granting some funds for running the school. It is purely a contractual obligation between respondents 2 and 3 which subsists for 5 years with effect from 01.06.2014. He would also argue that 2nd respondent is a Central government organization and therefore the laws of the A.P. State, unless specified, have no application to 2nd respondent. As the petitioners are not the employees of this respondent, they cannot compel the 2nd respondent to apply State Government laws on superannuation in their favour.
(a) It is further argued that as per clause-11 of MOA, only in the matter of payment of salaries and allowances of the teaching and non-teaching staff of respondent No.4, the scales approved by State Government to its employees are being followed but the said clause does not stipulate that all the service conditions of the state UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 10 government employees, particularly, superannuation, pension etc., are also invariably be followed. It is thus preposterous for the petitioners to claim to apply age of superannuation as is being implemented to the state government employees as per the amended Act 4 of 2014 and Section 78-A of the Education Act to them.
9. Whereas, respondents 3 and 4 argued that following the MOA between respondents 2 and 3, respondent No.2 meets recurring and non-recurring expenditure for the school, however, there is no aid or grant to the school till today either from the State Government or from the Central Government. The MOA dated 03.04.1986 initially executed for 5 years with effect from the academic year 1984-85, was extended from time to time and the latest one was on 21-01-2015 for a further period of 5 years. Respondent No.4 is thus purely a private un- aided educational institution and as such neither the Act 4 of 2014 nor Section 78-A of the Education Act has any application to the employees of respondent No.4. In fact, respondent No.4 made a request for enhancement of the age of superannuation but respondent No.2 declined. Already 9 members of the staff have accepted their age of superannuation and were retired.
10. The points that arise for determination are:
1. Whether respondents 2 to 4 answer the definition of 'State'? and if so, whether the A.P. State laws, particularly, Act 4 of 2014 and Section 78-A of the Education Act are applicable to them?
UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 11
2. Whether the petitioners are the employees of 2nd respondent or 4th respondent school run by 3rd respondent society?
3. Whether the 4th respondent school is a private un-aided school and if so, Section 78-A of the Education Act, 1982 is applicable to the said school?
4. To what relief?
11. POINT Nos.1 to 3: Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL) also known as Vizag Steel Plant is a public steel producer based at Visakhapatnam. It is a public sector undertaking and a Government of India enterprise wholly owned by the Government of India previously and it is informed, of late, public issues are made. A public sector undertaking is a distinct juristic entity with a corporate structure of its own and carries on its functions on commercial principles and most importantly with certain flexible autonomy, though behind the formal ownership is the deeply pervasive presence of the Government, which acts through the instrumentality or agency of the corporation. It should be noted, a mere fact that a corporate body or a corporate society answers the definition of 'State' under Article 12, does not make it 'the State Government' nor will the employees of such body become holders of civil posts or employees of the State Government. In Shrikanth Vs. Vasantrao1, the Apex Court delineated this aspect and held thus:
"The decisions rendered under Article 12 lay down that a body would answer the definition of State under Article 12 if it is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under all pervasive control of the "Government". On the other 1 AIR 2006 SC 918 = MANU/SC/0646/2006 UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 12 hand, where the control by the "Government" is merely regulatory, whether under any statute or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body 'State'. Thus the very decisions relied on by the High Court make it clear that 'instrumentalities of State' are different from 'State Government', though both may answer the definition of 'State' under Article 12 for the limited purpose of Part-III of the Constitution. Further, the very inclusive definition of 'State' under Article 12 by referring to Government of India, the Government of each of the States and the local and other authorities, makes it clear that a 'State Government' and a local or other authorities, are different and that they fall under a common definition only for the purpose of Part-III of the Constitution. This Court has consistently refused to apply the enlarged definition of 'State' given in Part-III (and Part-IV) of the Constitution, for interpreting the words 'State' or 'State Government' occurring in other parts of the Constitution. While the term "State" may include a State Government as also statutory or other authorities for the purposes of part-III (or Part- IV) of the Constitution, the term "State Government" in its ordinary sense does not encompass in its fold either a local or statutory authority. It follows, therefore, that though GMIDC and MJP may fall within the scope of 'State' for purposes of Part-III of the Constitution, they are not "State Government" for the purposes of Section 9-A (read with Section 7) of the Act."
(a) In State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha2 the Apex Court held that while such corporations/societies may answer the definition of a 'State', that does not mean that the State Government is liable to bear and pay the salaries of its employees, as it is a independent juristic entity and cannot be identified with or treated as the State Government. While a company or a corporation may be called an agency or an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, a corporation cannot also be held to be an agent of the 2 MANU/SC/0387/2009 =2009 (5) SCC 694 UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 13 Central/State Government under Section 182 of Contract Act The National Textile Corporation Limited v. Naresh Kumar Badri Kumar Jagad3.
(b) In A.K.Bindal and others v. Union of India and others (MANU/SC/0349/2003:AIR 2003 SC 2189), the Apex Court was dealing with question as to whether the employees of public sector enterprises have any legal right to claim that though the industrial undertakings or the companies in which they were working did not have financial capacity to grant revision in pay scale, yet, the Government should give financial support to meet the additional expenditure incurred in that regard. Answering the same the Apex Court observed that the Fertilizer Corporation of India and Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation are both registered under the Companies Act with the only difference that they are government companies within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act. Then, placing reliance on Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar (MANU/SC/0309/1969) and the decision in A.Saloman v. A Soloman and Co. Ltd., (1897/AC/22 Halsbury's Law of England) the Apex Court held that since the employees of Government companies are not government servants they have no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay scale should be met by the Government.
3
MANU/SC/1028/2011 = (2011) 12 SCC 695 UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 14
12. When the above jurimetrical jurisprudence is analyzed, it is clear that the 2nd respondent though a public sector undertaking being wholly owned by Government of India and answers the definition of 'State' being the instrumentality of Government of India, only for the limited purpose of Article 12 in Part-III of constitution but however, it does not become State i.e., Government of India for other purposes. Further, the employees of public sector undertakings and Government servants constitute two different and distinct classes and therefore the conditions of service prescribed for government servants do not automatically apply to the employees of public sector undertakings and therefore the plea of discrimination or violation of Article 14 does not merit acceptance. The above analysis also makes it clear that the 2nd respondent is only a public sector undertaking of Central Government and its constitution, formation and function will not allow me to hold that Andhra Pradesh State Government has any financial, functional and administrative control over 2nd respondent and petitioners have not produced any record to that effect to hold so. Since the company is located in the State of Andhra Pradesh, it can be assumed that the latter may have some peripheral regulatory powers over the 2nd respondent. So, respondent No.2 does not answer the general definition of 'State' except for Article 12 to safeguard fundamental rights to its employee. The respondents 3 & 4 are concerned, third respondent is a private society registered under Societies Registration Act. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, third respondent can be said to be the State. The fourth respondent is UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 15 a private educational institution, which was established as result of Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the respondents 2 & 3. Admittedly, fourth respondent is not getting any aid from the Government. So, fourth respondent also does not fit into the definition of 'State'.
13. In the above backdrop, when A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 is perused, the preamble would disclose that the said Act was enacted to regulate the age of superannuation of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 1 (2) clarifies as to whom the said Act applies. It says that it applies to (i) persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State; (ii) Officers and other employees working in any local authority, whose salaries and allowances are paid out of consolidated fund of the State; (iii) persons appointed to the Secretariat staff of houses of State Legislature; and
(iv) every other officer or employee whose conditions of service are regulated by rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India immediately before the commencement of this Act. It should be noted that Section 2 provides certain definitions. Section 2(2) defines 'Government' means Government of Andhra Pradesh and as per Section 2(7), 'State' means State of Andhra Pradesh. Under Section 3(1) every government employee not being a workman and not belonging to last grade service shall retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years; whereas under Sub-section (2) the UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 16 Government employee not being workman but belonging to last grade service shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years.
(a) While so under Section 2 of amendment Act 4 of 2014, Section 3(1) of 1984 Act was substituted with a new provision providing that the age of retirement of every government employee will be of 60 years. It is now the claim of the petitioners that by virtue of the amendment Act 4 of 2014, they are to be superannuated only after attaining the age of 60 years.
(b) Needless to emphasise that in view of the above discussion, the Act 1984 and its amendment Act 4 of 2014 have no application to the 2nd respondent because their application is confined to the State of Andhra Pradesh and to the persons specified in Section 1(2). As already discussed 2nd respondent is a public sector undertaking of Central Government and therefore the application of Act 1984 and the amendment Act 4 of 2014 to it does not arise.
(c) Moreover, a perusal of the MOA would show that it was by agreement between 2nd respondent company and 3rd respondent society that the 4th respondent school was established in 1984-85 initially for a period of 5 years, which was extendable and extended by different agreements, the latest being in the year 2015 for 5 years commencing from the academic year 2014-15. The other terms of the MOA would depict that the 4th respondent school will be managed by 3rd respondent with the local managing committee. Clause 6 of MOA shows the school building in Sector VI of Township with other UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 17 paraphernalia was provided by 2nd respondent on a nominal rent of Rs.1/- per month paid by 3rd respondent. As per Clause 7, the 2nd respondent shall bear the recurring and non-recurring expenditure towards teaching and non-teaching staff and further it will pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as administrative charges to 3rd respondent. Clauses 10 and 11 are germane for this writ petition. Clause 10 says selection and appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff of the school will be made by the Manager/Bishop of the school after the post is sanctioned by LMC, the staff will be employed by the society for the school for the period of agreement with the 2nd respondent. Clause 11 then says that the scales of pay, other allowances and benefits followed by the A.P. State Government from time to time to the teaching and non-teaching staff will be the scales of pay, other allowances and benefits, without pension, for the teaching and non- teaching staff as on the rolls of the school, who are employed on or before 31.05.2014. Clause 21 says the agreement for running the school will remain in force for 5 years from the academic year 2014- 15 with effect from 01.06.2014 and may be extended by mutual agreement.
(d) Thus, the terms of the MOA are clear to the effect that the 2nd respondent only provides financial assistance and other paraphernalia to 3rd respondent to run the school in the precincts of 2nd respondent company for the benefit of the students of the employees and others. The staff both teaching and non-teaching of 4th respondent school are treated as that of 3rd and 4th respondents. The continuation UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 18 of the school depends upon the terms of the agreement. The MOA shows that the term of the school is extended for every 5 years on mutual agreement. It is in these backdrop of facts, I find no force in the contention of petitioners that they are the employees of the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent fills the character of State (State of A.P.) and therefore the provisions of Act 1984 and its amendment Act 4 of 2014 are applicable to them. Such an argument has no legs to stand. The applicability of Act 4 of 2014 to respondents 3 & 4 is concerned, as already stated supra, third respondent is a private society and fourth respondent is the private institution run by third respondent. Whereas Act 1984 is intended to regulate the age of superannuation of persons appointed in public services and in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh. As already discussed supra, Section 1(2) of the said Act clarified as to whom the said Act applies. The employees of fourth respondent institution do not come within the mischief of Section 1(2) as they are purely under private service. In that view, Act 1984 cannot be made applicable to respondents 3 & 4.
14. Coming to Section 78-A of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, it extends to the State of Andhra Pradesh and it applies to all educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State except the institutions which were exempted. Section 78-A was amended to the effect that every teacher or member of the non-teaching staff employed in any aided private educational institution shall retire from service on the afternoon of last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 19 years. By virtue of this provision also, the petitioners claim that their superannuation has to be extended. It must be noted that so far as 2nd respondent is concerned, this Act has no application as it being a public sector undertaking of the Central Government and further the institution of 4th respondent school is not owned by it except being funded.
(a) So far as the applicability of Section 78-A to respondents 3 and 4 is concerned, it should be noted that admittedly respondent No.4 is an unaided private educational institution and neither the State Government nor the Central Government provides any funds for its maintenance and administration. Therefore, the said section, in my considered view, has no application to the respondents 3 and 4 and consequently petitioners, who are the employees in 4th respondent, cannot claim any benefit there from. In this regard, the order in W.P. No.25312 of 2015 dated 08.09.2015 relied upon by the petitioners can be distinguished. In that case, the 1st respondent is a statutory body and through 2nd respondent it started running the school and 2nd respondent was receiving aid for some of teaching staff from the State Government. Besides, 1st respondent also released funds to meet salary and other expenditure of the unaided posts. In that background, the writ petitioner therein who was a secondary grade teacher moved writ petition when he was superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years without conferring benefit under Section 78-A of the A.P. Education Act, 1982. A learned Judge of this Court held that since admittedly the respondents' institution was an aided private UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 20 educational institution, it would not lose such character by mere fact that some of the posts in the school were not admitted in grant in aid. Ultimately, the benefit under Section 78-A was directed to be extended to the petitioner therein. In the present case, the 4th respondent educational institution is an unaided one.
(b) It is also argued by the petitioners that since most of the Government companies/corporations, societies mentioned in Schedule IX and X of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, have, in tune with Act 4 of 2014, enhanced the age of superannuation of their respective employees from 58 to 60 years, second respondent who is also the public sector undertaking, may be directed to take a similar decision and enhance the superannuation age of the petitioners. This argument is wholly unacceptable for the prime reason that the companies, corporations/societies and other institutions listed in IX and X schedule belonged to erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, prior to bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh State into two States i.e., the new State Telangana and the residuary State Andhra Pradesh whereas second respondent was not a listed company in Schedule IX or X. The purpose for their mentioning in IX and X schedule is when delineated in the A.P. State Reorganization Act. For instance, Section 68 of the said Act reads thus:
68. Provisions for various companies and corporations:
(1) The companies and corporations specified in the Ninth Schedule constituted for the existing State of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function in those areas UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 21 in respect of which they were functioning immediately before that day, subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) The assets, rights and liabilities of the companies and corporations referred to in sub-section (1) shall be apportioned between the successor States in the manner provided in section 53.
Thus, the companies and corporations specified in Ninth schedule which belong to the existing State of Andhra Pradesh were continued to function from the appointed day in those areas in respect of which they were functioning immediately before that day, subject to the provisions of said section. It is further stated that the assets, rights and liabilities of the companies and corporations referred to in sub- section (1) shall be appointed between the successor States in the manner provided in section 53. Needless to emphasise that second respondent is not a listed company in Ninth schedule of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 since it is a public sector undertaking wholly owned by the Central Government and therefore, the question of division of said company among two successor States does not arise. So far as the training institutions and centres mentioned in Tengh schedule is concerned, Section 75 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 lays down that the Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Telangana, as the case may be, shall, in respect of the institutions specified in Tenth schedule, located in that State, continue to provide facilities to the people of other State which shall not, in any respect, be less favourable to such people than what were being provided to them before the appointed day, for such period and upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the UDPR,J W.P. No.1432 of 2019 22 two States within a period of one year from the appointed day or, if no agreement is reached within the said period, as may be fixed by order of the Central Government. Thus, Section 75 is only a facilitating section to facilitate the people of the other State to have the benefit of those institutions, centres located in another State for an agreed period. Thus, Tenth schedule has absolutely nothing to do with the present case on hand.
15. Thus on a conspectus of facts and law the writ petition does not merit consideration and therefore liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 05.08.2019 MVA/DSH