APHC010134612024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 6979/2024 Between: 1. SMT. PUPPALA VENKATA SURYANARAYANAMMA,, C/O B. PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 18-3-58/B1, KHADI COLONY, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (URBAN HOUSING), GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUDA, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517 501. 2 4. TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUDA, REP BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517 501. ...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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceeding vide bearing Rc.No.C1/0167/2021 dated 30.10.2023 issued by the Respondent No.4 in taking steps to retire the Petitioner from their services at the age of 60 years instead of 62 years as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority Act, 2016, Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Development Authorities Service Rules, 1988, opposed to Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 and Act No. 4 of 2022 dated 19.04.2022 and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same by further directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioner in service till 62 years instead of 60 years and to pass such other order. 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 to direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioner in service till age of the superannuation i.e., 62 years without any break and with all consequential attendant benefits including regular pay and allowances by suspending the proceedings bearing Rc.No.C1/0167/2021 dated 30.10.2023 issued by the 3 Respondent No.4, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such other order. 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 to implead the Petitioner/Proposed Respondent No.5 in the present W.P.No.6979 of 2024 and pass such other order. 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 to vacate the interim order dated 27.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.6979 of 2024 and pass such other order. 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 vacate the interim directions granted on 27.03.2024 in WP No.6979 of 2024 and to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV 2. GP FOR SERVICES I 3. Karri kalyan Durga Prasad SC FOR TUDA 4 WRIT PETITION NO: 21307/2024 Between: 1. Y KRISHNA SREENIVASULU, S/O Y. TIRU VENGALLIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O D.NO 8-142, SATYANARAYANA PURAM, TIRUPATHI. 2. K.NAGARJUNA,, S/O K.CHENGALA RAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O SRI RAM RECENDENCY, 1 FLOOR NEAR DBR HOSPITAL ROAD CHINTAL TIRUPATHI. 3. C.VENKATRAMI REDDY,, S/O C.BALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59YEARS, R/ODNO.1-15, GOLLAPALLI, TIRUPATHI ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (URBAN HOUSING), GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 3. THE TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUDA, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI-517 501, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. THE VICE CHAIRMAN, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI-517 501. ...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 to may be pleased to issue a Writ, 5 Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceeding vide bearing Rc.No.Cl/0167/2021 dated 30.10.2023 and consequential proceedings vide bearing Rc.No.Cl/0840/2024 dated 31.07.2024 and Rc.No.C1/0840/2024 dated 09.08.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 in taking steps to retire the Petitioners from their services at the age of 60 years instead of 62 years as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration 86 Urban Development Authority Act, 2016, Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Development Authorities Service Rules, 1988, opposed to Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 and Act No.4 of 2022 dated 19.04.2022 and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same by further directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioner in service till 62 years instead of 60 years and to pass such other order. 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 herein to continue the petitioners in service till age of the superannuation i.e., 62 years without any break and with all consequential attendant benefits including regular pay and allowances by suspending the Proceeding vide bearing Rc.No.C 1/0167/2021 dated 30.10.2023 and consequential proceedings vide bearing Rc.No.Cl/0840/2024 dated 31.07.2024 and Rc.No.Cl/0840/2024 dated 09.08.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such other order. 6 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 to vacate the interim directions granted on 30.09.2024 in WP No. 21307 of 2024 and to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3. Karri kalyan Durga Prasad SC FOR TUDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12776/2024 Between: 1. N V KRISHNA REDDY, S/O N. NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 6-1-73C, VARADARAJA NAGAR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MUNICIAPL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (URBAN HOUSING), GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 7 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 3. THE TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (TUDA), MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI-517 501, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. THE VICE CHAIRMAN, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI-517 501 ...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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings vide bearing Rc.No.C1/0167/2021 dated 30.10.2023 and consequential proceedings vide bearing Rc.No.C1/0840/2024 dated 05.06.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 in taking steps to retire the Petitioner from their services at the age of 60 years instead of 62 years as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority Act, 2016, Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Development Authorities Service Rules, 1988, opposed to Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 and Act No.4 of 2022 dated 19.04.2022 and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same by further directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioner in service till 62 years instead of 60 years and to pass such other order. 8 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 to direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioner in service till age of the superannuation i.e., 62 years without any break and with all consequential attendant benefits including regular pay and allowances by suspending the Proceeding vide bearing Rc.No.C1/0167/2021 dated 30.10.2023 and consequential proceedings vide bearing Rc.No.C1/0840/2024 dated 05.06.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such other order. 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 to vacate the interim directions granted on 26.06.2024 in WP No.12776 of 2024 and to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV 2. GP FOR SERVICES I 3. MUNI REDDY PERURU (SC FOR TUDA) 4. Karri kalyan Durga Prasad SC FOR TUDA 9 WRIT PETITION NO: 38499/2022 Between: 1. ATTURU VARADA REDDY, S/O A. GUNTI REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), R/O 18-8-49/15, MADHURA NAGAR, TIRUPATI 517 501, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 2. VISHNAMPETTAI SWAMINATHAN BALASUBRAMANYAN, SIO V. SWAMINATHAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC L.D. STENO, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), R/O D.NO 1-32/50(FLAT 405) SRI PADMAVATHI RESIDENCY K.R. NAGAR, THANAPALLE ROAD TIRUPATI 517 501, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 3. RAMAGIRI RAMACHANDRAIAH, 5/0 LATE SINGIRI CHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC FIELD MAN, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), R/O D.NO 2-25, PUDIPATLA TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 4. CHEVURU SRINIVASULU REDDY, SHP C.V. RAGHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC PLANNING OFFICER, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), RIO D.NO 18-8-25/6, MADHURA NAGAR TIRUPATI 517501, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 5. MUTHUKURU VENKATARAMAIAH, S/O GUNDALAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC CHAINMAN, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), R/O D.NO 6-18/A, BALIJAPALLE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT 6. EDARA VANI PRASAD RAO, S/O E. CHENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC ASSISTANT PLANNING OFFICER, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), R/O D.NO 39, KESAVAYANAGUNTA TIRUPATI 517 501, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 10 1. TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUDA, (TUDA), MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI 517 501 REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE VICE CHAIRMAN, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA) MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI 517 501 3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS, SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 4. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS, SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (URBAN HOUSING) GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. ...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 to issue a writ or writs or order or orders one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare 4th Respondents Memo. No.1857537/H1/2022, dated 21.11.2022 and consequential Retiring and relieving Proceedings ROC No.320/C1/2022, dated 22.11.2022 issued to the Petitioners by the 2nd Respondent contrary to 1st Respondent's Authority resolution dated 20.3.2002 and 3rd Respondents Cir. Memo. No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23/09/2022 to the extent of paragraph no.6 contrary to G.O.Ms.No.332, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (B1) Department, dated 17.8.2004 read with Resolution of the lst Respondent dated 16.7.2005 read with Section 140 (10) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 and the latest resolution of the 1st Respondent Authority dated 20.3.2022 and Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Development Authorities Service Rules, 1988 (issued vide 11 G.O.Ms.No.611, Housing, Municipal Admn. and Urban Development (B1) (M.A.), 22nd November, 1988) as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside i) 4th Respondents Memo. No, Memo. No.1857537/HI/2022, dated 21.11.2022 ii) consequential Retiring and relieving Proceedings ROC No.320/C1/2022, dated 22.11.2022 issued and iii) 3rd Respondents Cir. Memo. No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23/09/2022 to the extent of paragraph no.6 and be pleased to pass such other order. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 to permit the Petitioner to attend duties till age of superannuation of 62 years by suspending the operation of the 3rd Respondents Cir. Memo. No.1813129/FINO1 -HR/212/2022-HR-I V dated 23/09/2022 and 4th Respondents Memo. No.1857537/H1/2022, dated 21.11.2022 and consequential Retiring and relieving Proceedings ROC No.320/C1/2022, dated 22.11.2022 and be pleased to pass such other order. 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 to permit the petitioner/proposed respondent no.5 to come on record as 5th respondent in W.P.No.38499/2022 as well as in I.A.No.1/2022 and pass such other order. 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 to vacate the interim order granted in I.A.No.1/2022 in W.P.No.38499/2022 Dt.29-11-2022 and pass such other order. 12 IA NO: 3 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 to vacate the interim direction dated 29.11.2022 in WP No. 38499 of 2022 and dismiss the Writ Petition and to pass such other order. 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 to implead the proposed Respondent No.5 as Respondent No 5 in the above writ petition and be pleased to pass such other order. 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 to vacate the interim directions granted on 29.11.2022 in WP No. 38499 of 2022 and to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV 2. GP FOR SERVICES I 3. 4. Karri kalyan Durga Prasad SC FOR TUDA 13 WRIT PETITION NO: 3744/2023 Between: 1. KOTLA PUNNAIAH, S/O. KOTLA DANIYELU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, NAIDUPALLI VILLAGE, MARKAPURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI.GUTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MARKAPUR (R) MARKAPUR RURAL POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. NISHANAM SRINU, S/O N.YESOBU AGE 60 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, NAIUDUPALLI VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. NISHANAM NAGESU, S/O N.NAGAMANI AGE 45 YEAR, OCC MASON, NAIUDUPALLI, VILLAGE, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. NISHANAM SRINU, S/O N.SRINU AGE 22 YEARS, OCC MASON, NAIUDUPALLI VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 14 8. NISHANAM RAMADEVI, S/O N. SRINU AGE 50 YEARS, OCC, COOLIE, NAIDUPALLI VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 9. NISHANAM NAGENDRA, W/O N.ALLURAIAH, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, NAIDUPALLI VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 10. ENIBERA VENKATESWARLU, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGE 55 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, BOYALAPALLI VILLAGE, YERRAGONDAPALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 11. ENIBERA SRINU, S/O E. VENKATESWARLU, AGE 23 YEARS, OCC MASON, BOYALAPALLI VILLAGE, YERRAGONDAPALEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of respondents 2 to 4 in not conducting afresh enquiry into the death of my son Late Kotla Yocobu even though the petitioner has requested through a detailed representation and specifically bringing to their notice the names of suspects and the specific reasons for suspicion on 12-12-2022 in spite of lapse of almost one and half months as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to conduct afresh re-investigation into the death of the petitioner 's son Mr. Kotla, Yacobu forthwith, and take action against the Un-Official respondents No 5 to 11, and pass such other order. 15 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 to direct the respondents No 2 to 4 to pursuance of the representation dated on 12-12-2022, to conduct afresh re-investigation into the death of the petitioner's son Mr. Kotla Yacobu forthwith, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M CHALAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME WRIT PETITION NO: 15680/2023 Between: 1. TALURI REDDEPPA, S/O T. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC. LMV DRIVER, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), TIRUPATI R/O 20-1-470/35F, CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY COLONY, TIRUPATI URBAN, TIRUPATI NORTH, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P. 517 507 2. TIRUMALACHETTY RAMESH, S/O T KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC. OFFICE SUBORDINATE, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), TIRUPATI R/O 20-2-471/2C/3, MARUTHI NAGAR, KORLAGUNTA, TIRUPATI URBAN TIRUPATI DISTRICT 517501 3. PERURU VIJAYA RAGHAVULU, S/O P ANKAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC. CHAINMAN, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), TIRUPATI R/O 4- 16 11, HARIJANAVADA, THUMMALAGUNTA, TIRUPATI RURAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT 517502 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUDA, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI 517 501 REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE VICECHAIRMAN, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA) MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI 517 501 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS, SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS, SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (URBAN HOUSING) GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. ...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 to issue a writ or writs or order or orders one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare 4th Respondents Memo. No.1809523/2022, dated 21.11.2022 and consequential Retiring and relieving Proceedings RC No. C1/0167/2021, dated 12.06.2023 issued to the Petitioners by the 2nd Respondent contrary to 1st Respondent's Authority resolution dated 20.3.2022, 3rd Respondents Cir. Memo. 17 No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022- HR-IV dated 23/09/2022 to the extent of paragraph no.6 contrary to G.O.Ms.No.332, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (B1) Department, dated 17.8.2004 read with Resolution of the 1st Respondent, dated 16.7.2005 read with Section 140 (10) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 and the latest resolution of the 1st Respondent Authority dated 20.3.2022 and Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Development Authorities Service Rules, 1988 (issued vide G.O.Ms.No.611, Housing, Municipal Admn. and Urban Development (B1) (M.A.), 2nd November, 1988) as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside i) 4th Respondents Memo. No. Memo. No. 1809253/2022, dated 21.11.2022 ii) consequential Retiring and relieving Proceedings RC No. C1/0167/2021, dated 12.06.2023 issued by the 2'd Respondent to the Petitioners and iii) 3rd Respondents Cir. Memo. No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23/09/2022 to the extent of paragraph no.6 and be pleased to pass such other order. 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 to permit the Petitioner to attend duties till age of superannuation of 62 years by suspending the operation of the 3rd Respondents Cir. Memo. No.1813129/FIN0141111212/202 -HR-IV dated 23/09/2022 and 4th Respondents Memo. No. LW.10/2V) 2, dated 21.11.2022 and consequential Retiring and relieving Proceedings RC.No. C1/0167/2021, dated 12/06/2023 issued by the 2nd Respondent and be pleased to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 18 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV 2. GP FOR SERVICES I 3. 4. Karri kalyan Durga Prasad SC FOR TUDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7761/2025 Between: 1. SMT. R.VANISRI, , W/O. R.C.GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR PLANNING OFFICER, R/O D.NO 6-8-915, NGO'S COLONY, TIRUPATI. 2. E. HARIBABU,, S/O. RAMAIAH , AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC TYPIST, R/O 6-5, VENKATESWARA COLONY, TIRUPATI. 3. P.MURALI, , S/O. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC SUBORDINATE TIRUPATHI. 59YEARS, R/O D.NO.18-1- 56/2, SARADI NAGAR, K.T.NAGAR,TIRUPATI. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY' ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (URBAN HOUSING), GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT,, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 19 3. THE TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUDA, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI-517 501, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. THE VICE CHAIRMAN, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI-517501. ...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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Impugned Proceedings vide bearing Proceedings ROC No. 1959/C1/2024, dated 01.12.2024 and Impugned Proceedings vide bearing Proceedings ROC No. 1959/C1/2024, dated 01.12.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 in taking steps to retire the Petitioners from their services at the age of 60 years instead of 62 years as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, erroneous. contrary to Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration 86 Urban Development Authority Act, 2016, Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Development Authorities Service Rules, 1988, opposed to Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 and Act No.4 of 2022 dated 19.04.2022 and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same by further directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioner in service till 62 years instead of 60 years and to pass such other order. 20 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 direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioners in service till age of the superannuation i.e., 62 years without any break and with all consequential attendant benefits including regular pay and allowances by suspending the Proceeding issued in respect of petitioners Impugned Proceedings vide bearing Proceedings ROC No. 1959/C1/2024, dated 01.12.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such other order. IA NO: 2 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 vacate the interim direction granted in W.P.No.7761/2025, Dt.28.03.2025 and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. R CHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING WRIT PETITION NO: 13382/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK BASHA, S/O. S. PEEREN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R/O F. NO 12T,C BLOCK,TUDA APARTMENTS, N.T ROAD, TIRUPATI. 21 2. SMT. Y. CHANDRAMINA,, W/O. LATE Y. CHENGALRAYA CHETTY, CHAINMAN, AGED 60 YEARS, KAIURU VILIAGE, TIRUPATI. 3. ABDUL SALEEL,, S/O. ABDUL VAHAB MAISTRY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, GARDEN MAISTRY R/O. D.NO 18-6- 209, MUIIKI NELUGUNTA, NEAR RAILWAY QUARTERS, TIRUPATI. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (URBAN HOUSING), GOVEFHMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT,, VELAGAPUDI ARPARAVATI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 3. THE TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUDA, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI-517 50.1, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. THE VICE CHAIRMAN, TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA), MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, NEAR YSR CIRCLE, TATAIAHGUNTA, TIRUPATI-517501. ...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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction 22 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Impugned Proceedings vide bearing Proceedings ROC No. 1959/C1/2024, dated 01.12.2024 and Impugned Proceedings vide bearing Proceedings ROC Mo. 1959/C1/2024, dated 01.12.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 in taking steps to retire the Petitioners from their ser/ices at the age of 60 years instead of 62 years as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority Act, 2016, Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Development Authorities Service Rules, 1988, opposed to Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 issued by the Respondent No 2 and Act No.4 of 2022 dated 19.04.2022 and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same by further directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioner in service till 62 years instead of 60 years and to pass such other order. 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 direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioners in service till age of the superannuation i.e., 62 years without any break and with all consequential attendant benefits including regular pay and allowances by suspending the Proceeding issued in respect of petitioners Impugned Proceedings vide bearing Proceedings ROC No. 1959/C1/2024, dated 01.12.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such other order. IA NO: 2 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 23 vacate the interim orders granted in WP.No.13382/2025 Dt.27- 06-2025 and the same has been extended till further 3 three week on 04-07-2025 by dismissing writ petition with costs and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. R CHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. Karri kalyan Durga Prasad SC FOR TUDA The Court made the following: 24 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.Nos.6979 of 2024, 21307 of 2024, 12776 of 2024, 38499 of 2022, 3774 of 2023, 15680 of 2023, 7761 of 2025 & 13382 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: 1. As the issue in all the Writ Petitions is common, with the consent of counsel appearing for all the parties, the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a Common Order. 2. The Writ Petitions are filed by the Petitioners questioning the action of Respondent No.4 in seeking to retire the Petitioners from their services on attaining age of ‘60 years’ instead of ‘62 years’ as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration & Urban Development Authority Act, 2016. 3. W.P.No.6979 of 2024 is taken up as lead case for description of the parties and narration of facts. 4. In this case, the Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Architectural Draughtsman vide Proceedings bearing Roc.No.2514/C1/85, dated 16.01.1986 on temporary basis and subsequently his services were regularized after declaration of probation in the year 1998. 25 5. The Petitioner was further promoted as Junior Planning Officer on 01.09.2020. While so, the impugned proceedings dated 30.10.2023 was issued by Respondent No.4 stating that the Petitioner and other similarly situated persons would be retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years during the calendar year 2024. 6. The impugned proceedings proposing to retire the Petitioner and similarly situated persons on attaining the age of 60 years is questioned on the ground that Respondent No.1 had issued G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR & LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 enhancing age of superannuation of the Government employees from ‘60 years’ to ‘62 years’ by amending the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (Act 23 of 1984). 7. It is stated that Respondent No.3-Tirupati Urban Development Authority (for short “TUDA”) in a meeting conducted on 20.03.2022 had passed a resolution enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees from ‘60 years’ to ‘62 years’ in tune with G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022. In that context, it was pleaded that in view of the said resolution, the impugned 26 proceedings cannot be sustained. It is further stated that the impugned proceedings run in conflict with Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Development Authorities Service Rules, 1988 (for short “The Rules, 1988”) coupled with Act No.4 of 2022, dated 19.04.2022. 8. In the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4, it is stated that Respondent No.3-TUDA is a statutory authority constituted as per the provisions of A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 (for short “A.P.U.A.D. Act, 1975”) in the year 1981 vide G.O.Ms.No.1178, M.A. Department, dated 06.11.1981. It is further stated that vide G.O.Ms.No.964, M.A. Dept., dated 03.10.1979, the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Staff (Recruitment and Service) Regulations, 1979 were made applicable to TUDA with certain modifications issued vide G.O.Ms.No.368, M.A & UD (B) Department, dated 31.07.1985. 9. It is further stated that TUDA is not a Government Department but an autonomous body under the Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the service conditions 27 including the age of superannuation are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Urban Development Authorities Service Rules, 1988. It is stated that G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 amending the Act 23 of 1984 is not applicable to the employees of TUDA, as the same applies to public service and posts in connection with the affairs of the State and the employees working in any local authority, whose salaries and allowances are paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State. 10. As regards the resolution of TUDA seeking for extension of retirement age of employees from ‘60 years’ to ‘62 years’, it was rejected by Respondent No.1 vide Circular Memo No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV, dated 23.09.2022. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted. Reliance was also placed on the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1033 of 2023 and batch. 11. Learned Senior Counsel Sri N. Subba Rao appearing for the Petitioners would contend that the Petitioners would come within the definition of public servants and an extended arm of the Government and, therefore, the enhanced age of retirement should be extended to the Petitioners. 28 12. The learned Senior Counsel referred to various provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration & Urban Development Authority Act, 2016 (for short “A.P.M.A.U.D.A. Act, 2016”) and contends that the employees of the TUDA are required to be appointed with the approval of the Government and, therefore, they are entitled to be treated at par with the Government employees and the enhanced age of ‘62 years’ should be extended to the Petitioners also. 13. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 would submit that Respondent No.1 had rejected the request of the Petitioners for enhancement age of retirement on two occasions i.e. on 21.11.2022 and 24.01.2024, as the Act 23 of 1984 is not applicable to the Petitioners and the persons similarly situated. It was further contended that the salaries are being paid to the petitioners out of the funds of the authority. 14. Based on the rival contentions of both sides counsel, the issue that falls for consideration is whether the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 is applicable to the Petitioners. 29 15. Reasoning: The TUDA is a statutory authority that was constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.1178, MA & UD Department, dated 06.11.1981 as per the provisions of A.P.U.A.D. Act, 1975 for the development of Tirupati and areas adjacent thereto. 16. As regards the service regulations of the employees of TUDA, Respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.368, MA, dated 31.07.1985 approving the resolution of TUDA to adopt the HUDA Staff (Recruitment and Service) Regulation Act, 1979 as required under Section 59(1) of A.P.U.A.D. Act, 1975 and the Regulations were named as Tirupati Urban Development Department Staff (Recruitment and Service) Regulations, 1985. The regulation 14 thereof prescribes the age of superannuation and it states that the employees of the Authority shall retire on completion of 58 years as it was then. The Regulation 14 (i) is extracted below; “Regulation 14 (i): (i) An employee shall retire from the service of the Authority on his completing 58 years of age, provided that the Authority may, at its discretion sanction from time to time the extension of his employment for a period not exceeding one year at a time if he is physically 30 and mentally fit and where this extension appears desirable in the interests of the Authority. Extension of appointment beyond 60 years shall not ordinarily be sanctioned.” 17. In 1986, the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 was amended and Sections 4A and 4B were introduced in the Act giving control to the State Government to frame regulations. The Sections 4A and 4B of the Act are extracted below; 4A. Government's Power to regulate the methods of recruitment, conditions of service etc., of Officers appointed under Sec.4. (1) The Government shall have power- (a) to make rules to regulate the classification, methods of recruitment, conditions of service, pay and allowances and disciplinary conduct of the officer appointed under Section 4. (b) to recover from the Authority concerned the whole of the salary and allowances paid to any such officer and such contribution towards his leave allowances, pension or provident- cum-pension fund of such officer paid by the Government under sub-section (5) of Section 4. (2) The Government may at any time withdraw any officer appointed under Section 4 and appoint another in his place. 31 4B. Constitution of a Urban Development Authorities Service for the State for any class of officers and employees of the Authorities. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, or the rules made thereunder, the Government may, after consulting all the authorities by Notification, constitute any class of officers or employees of the Authorities into a Urban Development Authorities Service for the State. (2) Upon the issue of a notification under sub-section (1) of the Act Government shall have power to make rules to regulate the classification, methods of recruitment, conditions of service, pay and allowances and discipline, and conduct of the officers and employees of the Urban Development Authorities, service thereby constituted and such rules may vest jurisdiction in relation to such service in the Government or in such other Authority or Authorities as may be prescribed therein. 18. Pursuant to the amendment, the Respondent No.1 framed A.P. Urban Development Authorities Service Rules vide G.O.Ms No. 582 dated 3.10.1989 and A.P. Urban Development Authorities Subordinate Service Rules,1989 vide G.O.Ms. No.590 dated 05.10.1989. These Rules provide for constitution of posts, method of appointment, appointing authority, qualifications, discipline and other related aspects. However, there is no mention of age of retirement of the employees and the age of retirement provided under Regulation 14 of the Tirupati Urban 32 Development Department Staff (Recruitment and Service) Regulations, 1985 continued to govern the employees as the repeal of the Regulations was only to the extent they govern the method of recruitment and conditions of service as per Rule 14. The Rule 14 reads as under: “Rule 14: The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Staff Recruitment and Service Regulations, 1979, the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Staff Recruitment and Service Regulations, 1982, the Vijayawada Guntur-Tenali Urban Development Authority Staff Recruitment and Service Regulations, 1985 the Tirupathi Urban Development Authority Staff Recruitment and Service Regulations 1985 and the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority Staff Recruitment and Service Regulations, 1985 shall to the extent they govern the method of recruitment and conditions of service of members holding posts specified in Rule 2 stand repealed.” 19. The above Rule 14 repeals Regulations mentioned therein to the extent the conditions of service covered under the above Rules and the emphasis is on the phrase “to the extent” and, therefore, the age of superannuation/retirement as mentioned in Regulation 14 of the Tirupati Urban Development Department Staff (Recruitment and Service) Regulations, 1985 continues to hold forte. 33 20. Any other way of understanding Rule 14 would mean that there would be no age of superannuation for the employees of the Urban Development Authorities leading to absurdity. Such an understanding of the provision is not in the interest of the authority or the employee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. J.H. Gotla1 held that if a plain reading of statute leads to absurd results, the Courts should adopt a rational construction of the provision. Paragraph No.46 thereof is extracted below: 46. Where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature, the Court might modify the language used by the Legislature so as to achieve the intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction. The task of interpretation of a statutory provision is an attempt to discover the intention of the Legislature from the language used. It is necessary to remember that language is at best an imperfect instrument for the expression of human intention. It is well to remember the warning administered by Judge Learned Hand that one should not make a fortress out of dictionary but remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish and sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning. 1 (1985) 4 SCC 343 34 21. The A.P. Metropolitan Region Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 was enacted by the State and the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 was repealed. The Section 140(10)(C) thereof provides for continuation of erstwhile Rules to the employees and the power to make Rules vis-a-vis service conditions of the employees is conferred upon Respondent No.1 under Section 116(b) of the Act. In view of Section 116(b) of 2016 Act, any amendment or alteration to the service conditions of the employees of the urban authority would require approval from the Government. 22. The A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 was amended in the year 2014 enhancing the age of Government employees from ‘58 years’ to ‘60 years’. The Respondent No.1 taking note of the representations of the employees association extended the benefit of enhanced age of retirement to 60 years to the employees of Urban Development Authorities vide G.O.Ms.No.167, dated 29.06.2015. 35 23. The A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 was again amended in the year 2022 and the age of superannuation of Government employees was enhanced from ‘60 years’ to ‘62 years’. Consequent thereto, TUDA passed a resolution on 20.03.2022 requesting for enhancement of age of superannuation for employment of Urban Development Authority. Apart from the resolution of TUDA, representations were also given by the employees’ associations working in Urban Development Authority to enhance the age of superannuation. 24. The Respondent No.1 vide Memo No.18575/37/H1/2022, dated 21.11.2022 rejected the request of TUDA as well as VMRDA i.e. Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority seeking for enhancement of age of superannuation. A similar request by the employees’ association was also rejected by Respondent No.1 vide Memo No.757/1346/B2/2023, dated 24.01.2024 taking note of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch. 36 25. Coming to the contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners, it would be appropriate to refer to the scope of the applicability of Act 23 of 1984. Section (1) of the Act specifies the scope of applicability of the Act. Section (1) of the Act is extracted below: “1. Short title, application and commencement – (1) This Act may be called the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984. (2) It shall apply 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 the Consolidated Fund of the State; (iii) persons appointed to the Secretariat staff of the Houses of the State Legislature; and (iv) every other officer or employee whose conditions of service are regulated by rules framed under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India immediately before the commencement of this Act, other than the village officers and law officers; whether appointed before or after the commencement of this Act.” 37 26. As per the above provision, the Act is applicable to (i) persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State and sub-section (2) (ii) is with reference to officers and other employees working in any local authority, whose salaries and allowances are paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State. The sub-section (2) (iii) and (iv) is not applicable as the petitioners are not Secretariat staff nor are they governed by rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India prior to the Act of 1984. 27. The sub-section (2) (i) and (ii) above make a distinction between employees appointed in connection with the State and employees appointed and working under local authority. Both the provisions are mutually exclusive and employees cannot be said to be coming under both the provisions. 28. For applicability of sub-section 2(i), persons should be “appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State” and the benefit of this sub-section can be extended to only those persons. To put it in other words, the appointment to public service should be in connection with the affairs of the State. In the present case, the appointment of 38 petitioners is by the local authority for carrying on the statutory obligations under the Act of 1975 or Act of 2016. If every service to public is construed as public service to come within the clause (i), then every temporary, contractual, ad hoc, casual etc., can seek for extension of age of retirement to 62 years leading to absurd results. Therefore, the emphasis in clause (i) should be on appointment to the posts in connection with affairs of the State. 29. A Division Bench of this Court had considered this provision in W.P.No.21294 of 2023 and held at ParagraphNo.5 as under; “5) The persons like the Petitioner, who have been engaged on contractual basis, in the considered opinion of this Court do not constitute “a person who is appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State”. The use of the word "appointed" is not without significance. It implies an appointment made in accordance and in compliance with the laws/rules. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition, in our considered opinion, is misconceived.” 30. The factual scenario in the above cited case is slightly different, but the emphasis of the Judgement was that the appointment should be with reference to the affairs of the State 39 and in accordance with Rules. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.no.1033 of 2023 and batch, dated 05.05.2023 rejected the claim of employees of A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation seeking parity of age of superannuation with government employees. 31. Coming to sub-section (2) (ii) of the Act, there is no specific plea in the affidavit that the salary of the Petitioners is being paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State. In the counter affidavit filed by TUDA, it has been specifically stated at Paragraph No.8 that Respondent-TUDA is an autonomous body, meeting its expenditure from their own funds. 32. This aspect is further substantiated by the G.O.Ms.No.631, MA&UD, dated 13.12.1991 whereunder, the Rules applicable to Government employees with regard to Pension, Gratuity, General Provident Fund and Group Insurance Scheme were made applicable to the employees of the Urban Development Authority subject to the condition that the expenditure shall be incurred from the funds of the Urban Development Authority. The Paragraph No.5 thereof is extracted below: 40 “5. Accordingly, Government hereby order that the State Government rules in respect of Pension, Gratuity, General provident fund and Group Insurance Scheme be made applicable mutatis-mutandis to the employees of the Urban Development Authorities in the State on par with the State Government employees subject to the condition that the Urban Development Authorities shall meet the expenditure from their own funds for payment of the above.” 33. Apart from that, a reading of the G.O.Ms.No.631, dated 13.12.1991 would disclose that the salaries were being paid to the employees of the Authority from the General Fund of the Authority. This general fund to meet the expenditure of the Authority is provided under Section 22 of the A.P. Urban Development Authority Act, 1975 as well as Section 106 of the A.P. Metropolitan Region Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016. 34. Apart from the above, reliance on various provisions of the A.P. Metropolitan Region Urban Development Authorities Act, 2016 by the petitioners to substantiate their contention that the State Government is in control of the affairs of the urban development authority and, therefore, the petitioners are to be treated as government employees may not be correct. 41 35. The overall control is to ensure that the urban local authority remains accountable for the actions and avoid making the authority into individual fiefdoms. The overall control by the State Government does not make the employees of the Authority as employees of the State considering the applicable service rules and regulations. Further, the contention that the Petitioner was initially appointed by the TUDA and further promotions were effected by TUDA and now the employer of the Petitioner is the state does not find merit from this Court. 36. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Dayanand Chakravarty and Ors.,2 relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, the fact scenario is different. In the said case, the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam was constituted under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 and the Local Self-Government Engineering Department (LSGED) was merged. After the State enhanced the age of retirement to 60 years, the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Employees (Retirement of age of Superannuation) Regulations, 2005 were framed providing different age of superannuation for the employees of the Jal Nigam vide Regulation 3 and 4. However, the erstwhile 2 AIR 2013 SC 3066 42 Regulation 31 providing retirement age at par with Government employees remained unaffected. It was in that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered Judgement. In this case, there is no regulation enabling the Petitioners to be retired at par with Government employees and on the contrary, the regulations as stated above are to the contrary. 37. Therefore, this court does not find any merit in the Writ petitions and the Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 38. No order as to costs. 39. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 01.09.2025 IS 43 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.Nos.6979 of 2024, 21307 of 2024, 12776 of 2024, 38499 of 2022, 3774 of 2023, 15680 of 2023, 7761 of 2025 & 13382 of 2025 Date: 01.09.2025 IS