Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Velisetty Ratnam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 January, 2026
APHC010198402023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3460]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 10271/2023
Between:
1. VELISETTY RATNAM, W/O MADASU VENKATESWARA
RAO AGED ABOUT 60YRS, OCC. JUNIOR LECTURER
(ZOOLOGY) DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM
VATLURU VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL ELURU
DISTRICT WRIT PETITION IS WITHDRAWN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER NO.1 IS CONCERNED AS PER C.O. DT
26.09.2025 VIDE IA NO.1/2025
2. DEVALAPALLE VENKATRAMANA REDDY, S/O THIMMA
REDDY AGED ABOUT 60YRS, PHYSICAL DIRECTOR,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM RAMAKU.PPAM
VILLAGE, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL CHITTOOR
DISTRICT
3. POLU NARAYANA REDDY, S/O ANKI REDDY AGED
ABOUT 60YRS, OCC. LAB ATTENDER,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM RAYACHOOTI
VILLAGE, RAYACHOOTY MANDAL ANNAMAIAH
DISTRICT
4. ALLA RAVEENDRA REDDY, S/O SUBBA REDDY AGED
ABOUT 60YRS, OCC. JUNIOR LECTURER (ZOOLOGY)
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM TSUNDURU
2
VILLAGE, TSUNDURU MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT
5. CHALLAGALI NEHEMAIAH, SR) PAUL AGED ABOUT
60YRS, OCC. TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (SOCIAL)
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM VELUGONDA
VILLAGE, K K MITLA MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT
6. LRUPANI LAKSHMINARASIMHAM, S/O ANKAIAH AGED
ABOUT 60YRS, OCC. LAB ATTENDER
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM PEDDAPAVANI
VILLAGE, GUDLUR MANDAL S P S R NELLURE
DISTRICT
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE
DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR
DISTRICT
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE (HR.IV.FRANDLR)
DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR
DISTRICT
3. A P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION SOCIETY, MOKSHA SAI PLAZA,
TADEPALLI GUNTUR DISTRICT REPT. BY ITS
SECRETARY
4. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMHERIKAR GURNICULAM
VATLURU VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL ELURU
DISTRICT
5. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM
RAMAKUPPAM VILLAGE, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL
CHITTOOR DISTRICT
3
6. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM
RAYACHOOTI VILLAGE, RAYACHOOTI MANDAL
ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT
7. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM
TSUNDURU VILLAGE, TSUNDURU MANDAL GUNTUR
DISTRICT
8. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMHEDKAR GUNILCULARN
VELUGONDA VILLAGE, K K MITLA MANDAL PRAKASAM
DISTRICT
9. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM
PEDDA PAVANI VILLAGE, GUDLUR MANDAL S P S R
NELLORE DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or
direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus
to declare delay and inaction on the part of respondents in issuing
the orders for enhancing the age of superannuation of the
employees' working in the 31d respondent society from 60yrs to
62yrs in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dt.31-01-2022 issued by the 2nd
respondent as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the
respondents to issue orders enhancing the age of superannuation
of the employees' working in 3rd respondent society from 60yrs to
62yrs in terms of G.o.Ms.No.15, dt.31-01-2022 issued by the 2nd
respondent forthwith in the interest of justice.
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the
respondents to continue the petitioner in service beyond 60yrs till
the respondents take decision for enhancing the age of
4
superannuation of the employees working in 3rd respondent
society in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dt.31-01-2022 issued by the
2nd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest
of justice.
IA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to vacate the
Interim Orders passed in IA No. 1 of 2023 in WP No. 10271 of
2023 Dt. 24-04-2023 in the interest of justice and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to
permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition No. 10271 of
2023 to the extent of the petitioner no.l only in the interest of
justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. PARTY IN PERSON
2. P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
3. GP FOR SERVICES II
WRIT PETITION NO: 12019/2024
Between:
1. V SREERAMULU, S/O V PAKEERU NAIDU( LATE) AGE
60 YEARS, OCC- POST GRADUATE TEACHER (TELUGU)
5
H.NO 1-0, SIVALAYAM VEEDHI BOBBIN MANDALAM,
BOBBILI, VIZIANAGARAM BOBBILI VIZIANAGARANN-
535558.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF
SCHOOL EDUCATION, AND VICE CHAIRMAN,
A.P.S.W.R.E.I SOCIETY, SECRETARITE BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRACT, A.P
2. THE STATE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE
RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY,
REP, BY ITS SECRETARY TADEPALLI, GUNDUR
DISTRICT .A.P
3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE ( H R IV F R AND L
R ) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.A.P
4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. A.P
5. THE DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, APSWREI
SOCIETY, VIZIANAGARAM
6. THE PRINCIPAL, THE PRINCIPAL, DR. B R
AMBEDKAR, GURUKULAM SCHOOL AND COLLAGE,
P N BODDAVALASA, SALURU, PARVATHIPURAM,
MANYAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM. RESPONDENT
NO. 4 TO 6 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED
21.08.2024 VIDE I.A.NO.2 OF 2024 IN WP NO. 12019 OF
2024
6
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased topleased may be Pleased to issue
an appropriate writ, order or orders direction more particularly
one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare delay and
inaction on the part of respondents in issuing the orders for
enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees working
in the 2nd respondents, in the terms of G. O. Ms. No 15, dated
31-01-2022. But the 2nd respondent issued a proceeding Rc No
HR-1/179570/2017 dated 23/01/2024 to retire from service on
the attaining the age 60 years, and consequently direct the
respondents to implementing the age of superannuation from 60
year to 62 years as per, G.O.Ms. No 15 Finance (HR.IV- FR and
LR) Department dated 31-01-2022 and in the interest and
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the
respondents to continue the petitioner in service of 62 years till
the respondents take decision for enhancing the age of
superannuation of the employees workings in the 2nd
respondent society in terms of G.O Ms. No. 15 dated 31-01-2022
and pending disposal of the write petition in the interest of
justice and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the
petitioner to implead the proposed respondents as respondent
Nos .4, 5 and 6 in the above W.P .No. 12019 of 2024
Consequently directed the respondents 4 ,5, and 6 to implement
the interim order pass in I.A 1 of 2024 dated 20-06- 2024
7
IA NO: 3 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the
interim orders passed in I.A.N0.I of 2024 in W.P.No.12019 of
2024, dated 20-06-2024 in the interest of justice
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased "may be pleased to grant
leave to file Counter Affidavit in WP.No.12019 of 2024 before this
Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice"pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CH S V SURAJ
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM
2. GP FOR SERVICES III
3. GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 12710/2024
Between:
1. ARAVA RADHA, D/O RAMA KRISHNA RAO AGED
ABOUT 61 YRS, OCC- PGT (TELUGU)
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM JUNIOR COLLEGE
GIRLS RAJAMANDRY VILLAGE, RAJAMANDRY MANDAL
EAST GOWADARY DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
8
1. THE STATE OF AP, REPT. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE (HR.IV.FR AND LR)
DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR
DISTRICT
3. A P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION SOCIETY, MOKSHA SAI PLAZA,
TADEPALLI GUNTUR DISTRICT REPT. BY ITS
SECRETAR
4. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GUMKULAM BOYS
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM JUNIOR COLLEGE
GIRLS RAJAMANDRY TOWN, RAJAMANDRY MANDAL
EAST GOWADAVARI DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to direct the
respondents to continue the petitioners in service beyond 60yrs
till the respondents take decision for enhancing the age of
superannuation of the employees working in 3rd respondent
society in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dt.31-01-2022 issued by the
2nd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition in the
interest of justice.
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to issue
a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
writ of Mandamus to declare delay and inaction on the part of
respondents in issuing the orders for enhancing the age of
9
superannuation of the employees working in the 3rd respondent
society from 60yrs to 62yrs in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dt.31-01-
2022 issued by the 2 respondent as arbitrary and illegal and
consequently direct the respondents to issue orders enhancing
the age of superannuation of the employees' working in 3'"'
respondent society from 60yrs to 62yrs in terms of G.o.Ms.No.15,
dt.31- 01-2022 issued by the 2nd respondent forthwith in the
interest of justice
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
3. GP FOR SERVICES II
WRIT PETITION NO: 12739/2024
Between:
1. K RAMESH KUMAR, S/O KAZA LAKSHMI NARAYANA
AGE 60 YEARS, OCC- PHYSICAL DIRECTOR, GRADE -II
APSWREI SOCIETY. DR. BR AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM
TIRUVURU, NTR DISTRICT-521235
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, AND VICE
CHAIRMAN, A.P.S.W.R.E.I SOCIETY, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRACT, A.P
10
2. THE STATE ANDHRA PRADESH, SOCIAL WELFARE
RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY
REP, BY ITS SECRETARY TADEPALLI, GUNDUR
DISTRICT.A.P
3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE (HR IVF R AND LR)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.A.P
4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PRINCIPAL
SECERATRY OF ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL
WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION
SOCIETY SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI
A.P
5. THE DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, APSWREI
SOCIETY, N T R DISTRICT
6. THE PRINCIPAL, DR. B R AMBEDKAR, GURUKULAM(B)
TIRUVURU, N T R DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6
IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 10.07.2025
VIDE IA.NO.2 OF 2024 IN WP.NO.12739 OF 2024.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue an appropriate
writ, order or orders direction more particularly one in the nature
of writ of mandamus to declare inaction on the part of 2nd
respondents in issuing the orders / proceeding Rc No HR-
1/179570/2017 dated 23/01/2024 to retire from service on the
attaining the age 60 years and not enhancing the age of 62 years
of superannuation of the employees working in the 2nd
respondents, in the terms of G. O. Ms. No 15, dated 31-01-2022
which is totally illegal, arbitrary and violate of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, and Principle of Natural justice and
consequently direct to the respondents to reinstate and continue
11
the petitioner into the service of 62 years and implementing the
age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years as per, G.O.Ms. No
15 Finance (HR.IV-FR and LR) Department dated 31-01-2022
and in the interest and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the
respondents to reinstate and continue the petitioner in the
service of 62 years and till the respondents take decision for
enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees workings
in the 2nd respondent society in terms of G.O Ms. No. 15 dated
31-01-2022 and pending disposal of the write petition in the
interest of justice end pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the
petitioner to implead the proposed respondents as respondent
No's 4,5 and 6th in the above W.P .No. 12739 of 2024 and
consequentially direct the respondents 4,5 and 6th to implement
the interim orders pass in I. A. 1 of 2024 dated 25-06-2024 and
such other order pending disposal the above writ petition and
pass
IA NO: 3 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the
interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.12739 of
2024, dated 25-06-2024 in the interest of justice and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
12
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased "may be pleased to grant
leave to file Counter WP.No.12739 of 2024 before this Affidavit in
Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice"pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CH S V SURAJ
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM
2. GP FOR SERVICES III
3. GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 13526/2024
Between:
1. MODAGALA RAMACHANDRAIAH, S/O NARASIMHULU,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC- TRAINED GRADUATE
TEACHER (MATHS), ATCHAMPETA, PALNADU
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, FINANCE H R IV F R AND L R
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT A P.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF SEHOOL EDUCATION AND VICE
CHAIRMAN A P S W R E I SOCIETY, SECRETARIAT
VELAGAPUDI, A.MARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRACT A P.
13
3. ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL
EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY, REP BY ITS
SECRETARY, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT A P.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue any Writ,
Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declare the action of the respondents, in not
extending the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60
years to 62 years even though the government had issued
GO.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 is Illegal , violation of principals
of Natural justice and contrary to Sei-vice Rules and also Art
14,16,21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the
respondents to extend the age of superannuation of the
petitioner from 60 years to 62 years with all consequential
benefits and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct
the respondents particularly to continue the petitioner pending
disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the
interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.13526 of
2024, dated;04-07-2024 in the interest of justice and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
14
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to
file Counter Affidavit in WP.No. 13526 of 2024 before this
Hon'bie Court in the interest of justice and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G V L MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM
2. GP FOR SERVICES III
3. GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 13571/2024
Between:
1. CH S V ACHYUTA SHARMA, S/O VENKATA KANAKA
DURGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC-JUNIOR
LECTURER, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM JR.
COLLEGE, KOTHURU, ANAPARTHY MANDAL, EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, FINANCE H R IV F R AND L R
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT A P.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND VICE
CHAIRMAN A P S W R E I SOCIETY, SECRETARIAT
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRACT A P.
3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE
15
RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY, REP
BY ITS SECRETARY, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT A
P.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue any Writ,
Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandsimus declare the action of the respondents, in not
extending the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60
years to 62 years even though the government had issued
GO.Ms.No.l5, dated 31.01.2022 is Illegal , violation of principals
of Natural justice and contrary to Service Rules and also Art
14,16,21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the
respondents to extend the age of superannuation of the petitioner
from 60 years to 62 years with all consequential benefits and
pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct
the respondents particularly to continue the petitioner pending
disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to
vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in
W.P.No.13571 of 2024, dated 09-07-2024 in the interest of
justice and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
16
1. G V L MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM
2. GP FOR SERVICES III
3. GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 15161/2024
Between:
1. K BASAVA LINGAIAH, S/O LATE K.M. PRASAD AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC SUPERINTENDENT,
APSWREIS HEAD OFFICE, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT A P.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE H R IV F R AND L R
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT A P.
3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND VICE
CHAIRMAN A P S W R E I SOCIETY, SECRETARIAT
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRACT A P.
4. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE
RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION, INSTITUTION SOCIETY,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR
17
DISTRICT A P.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased topleased to issue any Writ, Order or
Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declare the action of the respondents, in not
extending the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60
years to 62 years even though the government had issued
GO.Ms.No. 15, dated 31.01.2022 is Illegal , violation of principals
of Natural justice and contrary to Service Rules and also Art
14,16,21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the
respondents to extend the age of superannuation of the
petitioner from 60 years to 62 years with and consequential
benefits and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the
respondents particularly to continue the petitioner pending
disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to
vacate the interim orders passed in IANo.1 of 2024 in
W.P.No.15161 of 2024, dated 19-07-2024 in the interest of
justice and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G V L MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
18
1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM
2. GP FOR SERVICES III
3. GP FOR SERVICES I
4. GP FOR SERVICES II
WRIT PETITION NO: 16193/2024
Between:
1. CH VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O GOPAIAH, AGED-60
YEARS, OCC-ART TEACHER, R/O DOOR NO. 14-232,
RAJUPETA, TIRUVURU, NTR DISTRICT - 521235.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (HR IV-FR AND LR),
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE
RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MOKSHA SAI PLAZA,
TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT COORDINATOR, ANDHRA PRADESH
SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION SOCIETY, OFFICE AT CM GUEST HOUSE
CAMPUS, BEHIND PWD GROUNDS, VIJAYAWADA, NTR
DISTRICT.
19
5. THE PRINCIPAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM
SCHOOL AND COLLEGE, KRISHNARAOPALEM
VILLAGE, A. KONDURU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT-
521226.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased toMay be pleased to issue a writ,
order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF
MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in
not taking steps for enhancement of Petitioners Age of
Superannuation from 60 to 62 years, inspite of proposals sent by
the 3rd respondent society through his Letter vide Rc.No.A-
15019/1/2022-GEN, dated 20.07.2022, as illegal, arbitrary,
contrary to G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 and offends Articles
14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the
respondents to continue the petitioner in his post in the school
and college of 5th respondent, till he attains age of
superannuation of 62 years as per the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated
31.01.2022, by duly considering the proposals sent by the 3rd
respondent dated 20,07,2022 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to direct
the respondents to continue the petitioner in his post in the
school and college of 5th respondent, till he attains age of
superannuation of 62 years as per the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated
31.01.2022 and by duly considering the proposals sent by the
3rd respondent dated 20.07.2022, pending disposal of the main
writ petition and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
20
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to
vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in
W.P.No.16193 of 2024, dated 29-07-2024 in the interest of
justice and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRINIVAS AMBATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM
2. GP FOR SERVICES III
3. GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 18557/2024
Between:
1. PULLETI KURTHI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA
JYOTHI, W/O T. RAMA RAJU AGE 60 YEARS, OCC- TGT
-SOCIAL DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM,
VIYYAMPETA, KOTTAVALASA MANDAL,
VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. HOUSE .NO 1-9-12/24, A 4
SECTOR-1, MVP COLONY VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, L
B COLONY VISAKHAPATNAM -530017
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
A.P.S.W.R.E.I OF DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRACT, A.P
21
2. DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, VICE
CHAIRMAN, A.P.S.W.R.E.I SOCIETY, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR
DISTRACT, A.P
3. THE STATE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE
RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY,
REP, BY ITS SECRETARY TADEPALLI, GUNDUR
DISTRICT .A.P
4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. A.P
5. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE ( H R IV F R AND L
R ) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI. A.P
6. DISTRICT COORDINATOR OF APSWREIS,
VIZIANAGARAM.
7. THE PRINCIPAL, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM,
VIYYAMPETA, KOTTAVALASA MANDAL,
VIZIANAGARAM
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate
writ, order or orders direction more particularly one in the nature
of writ of mandamus to declare delay and inaction on the part of
respondents in issuing the orders for enhancing the age of
superannuation of the employees working in the 2nd
respondents, in the terms of G. O. Ms. No 15, dated 31-01-2022
and proposal for enhancing the age of Superannuation from 60
to 62 years on the par with state Government Employees by the
22
secretary of A.P.S.W.R.E.I.Society dated 20-07-2022. But the
2nd respondent issued a proceeding Rc No HR-1/179570/201 7
dated 02/07/2024 to retire from service on the attaining the age
60 years, and consequently direct the respondents to
implementing the age of superannuation from 60 year to 62
years as per, G.O.Ms. No 15 Finance (HR.IV-FR and LR)
Department dated 31-01-2022 and also as per the
recommendation by the secretary of A.P.S.W.R.E.I. Society dated
20- 07-2022 to the petitioner, in the interest of justice and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the
respondents to continue the petitioner in service of 62 years till
the respondents take decision for enhancing the age of
superannuation of the employees workings in the 2nd respondent
society in terms of G.O Ms. No. 15 dated 31-01-2022 and also as
per the recommendation by the secretary of
A.P.S.W.R.E.I.Society dated 20-07- 2022, pending disposal of
the write petition in the interest of justice pending disposal of the
above writ petition and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the
interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.18557 of
2024, dated 23-08-2024 in the interest of justice and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CH S V SURAJ
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
23
2. GP FOR SERVICES II
WRIT PETITION NO: 19905/2024
Between:
1. M ANIL KUMAR, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED. 60 YEARS,
OCC. PRINCIPAL (GRADE-I), R/O PLOT NO.106, CBR
RESIDENCY, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE (HR IV-FR AND LR), SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE
RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MOKSHA SAI PLAZA,
TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT COORDINATOR, ANDHRA PRADESH
SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION SOCIETY, TIRUPATI, ERSTWHILE SPSR
NELLORE DISTRICT, (PRESENTLY TIRUPATHI
DISTRICT).
5. THE PRINCIPAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM
SCHOOL AND COLLEGE, CHILLAKUR, ERSTWHILE
SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, (PRESENTLY TIRUPATI
DISTRICT)
24
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or
direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF
MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in
not taking steps for enhancement of Petitioner's Age of
Superannuation from 60 to 62 years, inspite of proposals sent by
the 3rd respondent society through his Letter vide Rc.No.A-
15019/1/2022-GEN, dated 20.07.2022, as illegal, arbitrary,
contrary to G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 and offends Articles
14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the
respondents to continue the petitioner in his post in the school
and college of 5th respondent, till he attains age of
superannuation of 62 years as per the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated
31.01.2022, by duly considering the proposals sent by the 3rd
respondent dated 20.07.2022 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the
respondents to continue the petitioner in his post in the school
and college of 5th respondent, till he attains age of
superannuation of 62 years as per the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated
31.01.2022 and by duly considering the proposals sent by the 3rd
respondent dated 20.07.2022 and also pay the salaries to the
petitioners every month, pending disposal of the main writ petition
and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the
Interim Order dated: 11.09.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.
25
19905 of 2024 and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in
the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRINIVAS AMBATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. RAVI KUMAR PONAKAMPALLI
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
3. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
26
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
W.P.No.10271 of 2023
and
12019, 12710, 12739, 13526, 13571, 15161, 16193,
18557 and 19905 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
The common issue in all the writ petitions is with regard to the enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years as per G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022.
2. The Petitioners are working in Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (herein after referred to as 'APSWREIS' for brevity) in teaching faculty. Originally, the age of superannuation of the employees of the Society, other than class IV employees, was 58 years. While so, the State Government issued A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Amendment Act, 2014, enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years to the State Government employees vide G.O.Ms.No.147, dated 30.06.2014. 27
3. Thereafter, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 27.06.2017, according approval to enhance the age of superannuation to employees working in institutions listed in Schedules IX and X of the A.P.Re-organization Act, 2014 subject to the decision of the Board of Directors/ Managing Committees of the respective legal entities. Subsequently, the State Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.138, dated 08.08.2017, enhancing the age of superannuation of employees in Schedules IX and X of the A.P.State Re-organization Act, 2014 stating that employees shall not be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years and shall be continued up to 60 years. Consequently, the employees of the Respondent-Society continued till the age of 60 years.
4. While so, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022, amending the A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, by enhancing the age of superannuation to 62 years. Consequently, Respondent-Society is said to have been sent a proposal to State Government for enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years on par with State Government employees. Since no further steps 28 are taken on the proposals of the Respondent-Society, the present writ petitions are filed seeking for continuance till the Petitioners attaining the age of 62 years.
5. In the counter filed by APSWREIS, it is stated that the Society was created vide G.O.Ms.No.118, Social Welfare (Q) Department, dated 17.11.1983 for providing quality education to the talented children belonging to Scheduled Caste community coming mainly from the rural areas and vide G.O.Ms.No.245, Social Welfare (Q) Department, dated 03.10.1986, the Respondent-Society was constituted to supervise, control and manage the Social Welfare Residential Institutions in the State.
6. It is stated that Respondent-Society is registered under the A.P.Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli and the Management of the Society is vested in Board of Governors with Hon'ble Minister for Social Welfare as Chairman and the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department as Vice- Chairman and other Government Officials as Members. It is the further plea that Respondent-Society is an autonomous body receiving 100% Grant-in-Aid funds from the State Government and is a distinct entity. It is stated that the State Government had issued a clarification vide circular dated 23.09.2022 stating 29 that the Amendment Act is applicable only to certain categories and that the enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years is not applicable to the employees of Respondent-Society. It is further pleaded that employees working in Respondent- Society are governed by separate Bye-laws and the G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 cannot be extended to the benefit of the Petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Respondent-Society is a Government entity and there cannot be any discrimination in matters of age of superannuation. It is further pleaded that the benefit of age of superannuation should be extended to the Petitioners also as they are Government employees for all practical purposes. The further contention of learned counsel is that Education and Teaching are obligations of the State and the benefit of the age of superannuation should be extended akin to all the teaching faculties in the State irrespective of whether they are employees of the Society or teachers in the schools run by the State Government. The learned counsels also pointed out the difference in age of superannuation in similar Society established for the purpose of Backward Classes i.e. Mahatma Jyothiba Phule Andhra Pradesh Backward Class 30 Welfare Residential Institution Society (for brevity 'MJPAPBCWRIS'), where the age of superannuation is at par with Government employees i.e. 62 years.
8. Learned standing counsel and learned Government Pleader would contend that age of superannuation is governed by the Bye-laws framed by the Society and the Petitioners, being fully aware of the age of superannuation prescribed under the Bye-laws, cannot turn around and seek for continuation beyond the age specified in the Bye-laws. It is further submitted that the enhancement of age of superannuation is a policy decision to be taken by the State Government and unless and until the Bye-laws are amended, the mere recommendation by the Board of Directors/ Managing Committee of the Respondent-Society would not suffice. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in G.Rama Mohan Rao and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary and Chairman, Agricultural Marketing and Co- operative Department and another1 and a judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22719 of 2022 and batch dated 30.08.2023.
1 2017 (3) ALT 1 31
9. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned standing counsel and learned Government Pleader.
10. The A.P.Social Welfare Residential Educational Institution Society (APSWREIS) is established for improving the quality of education for the talented children belonging to Scheduled Caste community and an independent legal entity with its Bye-laws governing the conditions of services. The Bye-laws of the Society provide for Cadre Strength, Method of Appointment and Appointing Authority, Qualifications & Other Conditions of Recruitment, Disciplinary Rules, Unit of Appointment etc., among other conditions of service. The Rule 13 provides for age of superannuation. The same reads as under:
13: Every APSWREI Society employee shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he/she attains the age of sixty years.
11. This age of superannuation was enhanced to 60 years vide G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 27.06.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.138, dated 08.08.2017. In the light of the same, the employees of the Respondent-Society are continuing till the age of 60 years. 32
12. The amendment to the A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, whereunder the age of retirement was enhanced to 62 years vide G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, does not have any application to the employees of the Society as they are governed by independent rules and it is not an automatic amendment. In the light of the specific age of superannuation, the continuation of Petitioners beyond the age specified in the Bye-laws/ Rules would amount to virtual amendment to the Rule/Bye-law and the same is impermissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.M. Gadre v. M.G. Diwan and Others2 held 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 32 read with Article 142 it would not be permissible for the Court to substitute all the existing service conditions by a totally new set of service conditions."2
(1996) 3 SCC 454 33
13. The condition of service cannot be altered by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Prakasan M.P., and Others v. State of Kerala3, while dealing with the claim of enhanced age of superannuation, held that these are policy issues and it is not for Courts to prescribe a different age of superannuation. The relevant Paragraph thereof is extracted below;
"11. 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 from the one applicable to Government employees 1 2023 Supreme (SC) 801 31 under the relevant service Rules and Regulations. Nor can the Court insist that once the State had taken a decision to issue a similar Government Order that would extend the age of retirement of the staff teaching in the Homeopathic Colleges as was issued in respect of different categories of teaching staff belonging to the Dental stream and the Ayurvedic stream, the said G.O. ought to have been made retrospective, as was done when G.O. dated 14th January, 2010 was issued by the State and given retrospective effect from 1st May, 2009. These are all matters of policy that engage the State Government. It may even elect to give the benefit of extension of age to a particular class of Government 3 2023 Supreme (SC) 801 34 employees while denying the said benefit to others for valid considerations that may include financial implications, administrative considerations, exigencies of service, etc."
15. Similarly, in New Okhal Industrial Development Authority and Another v. B.D. Singhal and Others 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the age of superannuation is a policy matter and not for the Courts to venture into. The Paragraphs 22 and 26 thereof are extracted below;
"22. Whether the age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance the age of superannuation, the date with effect from which the enhancement should be made falls within the realm of policy. The High Court in ordering that the decision of the State Government to accept the proposal to enhance the age of superannuation must date back to 29-6-2002 has evidently lost sight of the above factual background, more specifically (i) the rejection of the original 2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 466 proposal on 22-9-2009; and (ii) the judgment of the Division Bench dated 17-1-20124 refusing to set aside the order rejecting the proposal on 22-9-2009 which has attained finality. But there is a more fundamental objection to the basis of the decision of the High Court. The infirmity in the judgment lies in the fact that the High Court has trenched upon the realm of policy making and has assumed to itself, jurisdiction over a matter which lies in the domain of 4 2021 SCC OnLine SC 466 35 the executive. Whether the age of superannuation should be increased and if so, the date from which this should be effected is a matter of policy into which the High Court ought not to have entered."
"26. The High Court's observation that the Government Order on 30-9-2012 increasing the age of superannuation prospectively is arbitrary seems to be based on the premise that the respondent employees have a vested right to the increase in the age of retirement on the passage of the resolution by Noida Authority. However, Section 19 of the Act stipulates that regulations -- which would include amendments as in this case -- will require the previous approval of the State Government. The employees will have a vested right to the increased age of superannuation only after the Service Regulations are modified upon approval of the State Government, and from such date as may be prescribed by the Government. Para 1(ii) of the Government Order issued on 30-9-2012 clearly and in unambiguous terms states that the order shall come into force prospectively. The government order can be given retrospective application only if expressly stated or inferred through necessary implication. Therefore, the respondent employees could not have claimed a vested right that the enhancement in the age of retirement should be made effective from the date on which Noida Authority had resolved to submit a proposal for the approval of the Government."36
16. A similar view was also taken in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das 5 vis-a-vis rejecting the claim of parity of age of superannuation by Ayush Doctor working in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) with the enhanced age of superannuation with Ayush Doctors working in Ministry of Ayush and CGHS Hospitals. Paragraph 48 is extracted below:
"48. We may only say that the entire approach of the High Court towards the present litigation was incorrect. We are a bit disappointed to observe that the High Court dealt with the present litigation in a very casual manner. First, the High Court went to the extent of granting interim relief extending the period of service beyond 60 years till the disposal of the Original Petition by the CAT. By virtue of such interim order which the High Court ordinarily should not grant, the respondent No. 1 although was to retire in 2018 yet continued in service till 2021. It is only when this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the High Court while issuing notice that the service of the respondent No. 1 came to an end. The Court or the Tribunal should, therefore, be slow and circumspect in granting interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated. But if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the High Court was 5 (2023) 16 SCC 462 37 conscious of the fact as very much recorded in the impugned order that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Research Assistant and was functioning as a Researcher under the Research Council and his service conditions were also different compared to the AYUSH doctors serving with the Ministry of AYUSH. The High Court misdirected itself saying that the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation can also be granted if the duties performed are the same like AYUSH doctors. We fail to understand how can the Court fix the age of superannuation of an employee saying that he is very much devoted towards his job. The age of superannuation is always governed by statutory rules & other service conditions."
17. It is pertinent to note that a Division Bench of this Court in G.Rama Mohan Rao's case (1 supra) was considering a scenario where exactly similar to the present one. At that point of time, the issue that fell for consideration was whether the employees of Respondent-Society are also entitled for enhanced age of superannuation i.e. 58 to 60 years on the basis of resolutions of the Respondent-Society. The Division Bench held that consent of the State Government is required and mere resolution of Respondent-Society would not suffice. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
183. The decision of the Board of Directors/Managing Committees to request the State Government to enhance the age of superannuation is tentative and not 38 final. It is subject to the proposal being accepted by the State Government. While some of these undertakings appear to be profit making, some appear to be fully funded by the State Government. The question whether enhancing the age of superannuation would increase its financial burden, which it finds it difficult to bear, are also matters to be considered by the State Government.
These factors would vary from one undertaking to another.'
190. The earlier G.Os were issued by the Government of A.P. without these legal entities amending its rules/regulations/byelaws, governing the age of superannuation and without the prior approval of the sole majority shareholder i.e., the State Government as required under the Articles of Association byelaws of these legal entities. As the Rules and Regulations, by which the petitioners are governed, stipulate 58 years as the age of retirement, these employees cannot claim any right to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. It is only if the request of these Companies/Corporations/Societies, for amendment of its byelaws/rules and regulations, are approved by the State Government, and the rules/byelaws/regulations are amended thereafter in accordance with law, would their employees then be governed by the enhanced age of superannuation prescribed under the Rules/bye-laws.
191. Since the Board owned Companies! Corporations/Societies have submitted proposals, the State Government is Directors/Managing Committees of these wholly or substantially government on their financial position, 39 genuineness of their need to enhance the age of superannuation etc, and then take a decision whether or not their request to enhance the age of superannuation of their employees from 58 to 60 years, should be approved. Suffice it, if the Government of A.P. is directed to consider the proposals submitted by each of these corporations/societies/companies, for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years in accordance tih law, and take a decision thereupon at the earliest, in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'
18. The said judgment was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch and a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.22719 of 2022 and batch. As regards the plea of parity in the age of superannuation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Teachers Association of Government Engineering College6 had rejected such a plea as the terms and conditions of service as well as method of recruitment are different, as in these cases.
19. In the light of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
6
(2000 (10) SCC 527 40
(i) The State Government is directed to consider the feasibility for enhancement of age of superannuation of employees of Respondent-Society from 60 to 62 years as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(ii) Till a concrete decision is taken by the State Government, the Petitioners and similar employees of Respondent-Society are not entitled for continuation beyond the age of 60 years.
(iii) The Petitioners who have discharged duties pursuant to interim order of this Court shall be paid salary, however, the said period of service shall not be counted for calculating retirement benefits.
(iv) No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 29.01.2026 KLP