1 APHC010314132022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 18731/2022 Between: K.v.prasad Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K RAMAMOHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION) 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 3. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not applying G O Ms No 479 Revenue Endowments-I Department dated 21.11.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.128 Revenue Endowments-I Department, dated 28.03.2017 to the Petitioner and in not paying the arrears in the benefits to the Petitioner in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.479 Revenue Endowments-I Department, dated 21.11.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.128 Revenue Endowments-I Department dated 28.03.2017, as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and further direct the Respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.479 Revenue 2 Endowments-I Department dated 21.11.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.128 Revenue Endowments-I Department dated 28.03.2017 to the Petitioner with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits with arrears and interest and pass ……” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed as Attender in the Respondent No.3 Temple in the year 1980. He was promoted as Record Assistant in the year 1989 and was subsequently promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 1998 and he was supposed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years on 30.06.2014, but the petitioner was not retired. The Government enhanced the age of superannuation to the Government Employees vide G.O.Ms.No.63 (Law) Department, dated 27.06.2014 from 58 years to 60 years and in view of the said G.O. the petitioner was continued in service up to 05.12.2014. It is stated that the Respondent No.3 directed the petitionerto retire from service stating that G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 27.06.2014 has no application to the Respondent No.3 Temple Employees vide Proceedings Rc. No.A1/888/2014, dated 05.12.2014 and also ordered recovery of the salary which was paid to him from 01.07.2014 to 05.12.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.12246 of 2015 before the erstwhile composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Hon'ble Court while ordering notice on 24.04.2015, directed the Respondent No.2 to take the decision as to whether the age of superannuation of the employees working in various temples is to be enhanced to 60 years or not to bring them on par with State Government servants. Further, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition observing that the salary shall be paid to the employees for the period they 3 worked. The petitioner was paid salary to the additional six months he worked vide cheque dated 22.11.2017. While the matter stood thus, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.479, dated 21.11.2016 notifying that the Age of superannuation of every office holder or servant shall be 60 years w.e.f. 01.10.2016. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has also issued G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 28.03.2017 giving retrospective effect to G.O.Ms.No.479, dated 21.11.2016 w.e.f. 02.06.2014. In the said G.O.Ms.No.128, it is stated that the services of employees who have already crossed 60 years, shall be deemed to have been continued till the date of attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years and the interregnum period between 02.06.2014 and 30.09.2016 shall be treated as leave, to which the employee is eligible, and in case, no leave is due, the period shall be treated as extra ordinary leave.The Petitioner retirement date was 30.06.2014 and his original retirement date was 05.12.2014. Both the dates fall within the period between 02.06.2014 and 30.09.2016. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible for the benefit extended under G.O.Ms.No.479, Revenue (Endowments-1) Department dated 21.11.2016 r/w G.O.Ms.No.128, Revenue (Endowments-1) Department dated 28.03.2017. Accordingly, the petitioner made representations to the Respondent No.3 on 28.10.2020, 02.11.2020, 04.08.2021 and 16.08.2021 requesting to extend the benefit of extended the age of superannuation and to pay the consequential monetary benefits in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.479. Revenue (Endowments-1) Department dated 21.11.2016 r/w G.O.Ms.No.128. Revenue 4 (Endowments-1) Department, 28.03.2017. But the respondents have not taken any action so far. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2. While denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that, Rule 36 of G.O.Ms.No.888 Dt.08.12.2000, makes it clear that the special provisions mentioned in Rule 37 to 47 shall apply to the 8 Major Institutions except Rules 5 and16. In relation to the age of superannuation, Rule 9 specifies that the age of superannuation shall be 58 years. All the Rules made in G.O. Ms. No.888 are applicable to all the employees of Temples in Andhra Pradesh including Rule-9. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the claim of the petitioner that the enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years as was given to Government employees shall also be extended to him on par with Government employees. Since the age of superannuation given in Rule 9, to be 58 years the rule was specifically amended in G.O.M.s.No.479, Revenue (Endowments -1) Department, Dt.21.11.2016 indicating that the orders shall come into force w.e.f., 01.10.2016 and further amendment issued through G.O.Ms.No.128, Revenue (Endowments -1) Department, Dt.28.03.2017 makes it clear that the amendment shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 02.06.2014 and the employees who were superannuated in the interregnum period from 02.06.2014 and 30.09.2016 shall be re-inducted into service/post as such, with effect from the date of issue of this order, and continued in service till attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that, 5 G.O.Ms.No.128, Dt.28.03.2017 makes it further clear that the employees, who have already crossed 60 years, their service shall be deemed to have been continued, till the date of attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. The interregnum period between 02.06.2014 and 30.09.2016 shall be treated as leave, to which the employee is eligible; and in case no leave is due, the period shall be treated as extraordinary leave. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent temple has issued proceedings in Rc.No.A1/888/2014, Dt.--.03.2021 indicating that as on the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e., 30.06.2014, 61 days of H.P.L.(Half Pay Leave) and 45 days of E.L.(Earned Leave) a total 106 days balance was available in his leave account. As per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.128, Dt.28.03.2017 the period may be regularized and one increment due on 01.10.2014 may be sanctioned as per the willingness of the petitioner. In the said proceedings it is also made clear that if the petitioner does not agree to the said arrangement, he would not be entitled to the increment. The claim of the petitioner in his representation18.05.2022 is for sanction of R.P.S. 2015 and for correction of increment date from 01.10.2015. The date of increment of the petitioner is in the month of October of every year, and increments are sanctioned accordingly. In view of the above facts, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri K. Rama Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 6 5. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, contended that the petitioner’s retirement date was 30.06.2014 and his original retirement date was 5.12.2014 both the dates fall within the period between 02.06.2014 and 30.09.206, therefore the petitioner is eligible for the benefit extended under G.O.Ms.No.479 dated 21.11.2016 r/w G.O.ms.No.128 dated 28.3.2017. He submits that even though the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 18.5.2022 to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 28.3.2017 and pay consequential monetary benefits to him, butno action has been taken so far which is highly illegal andarbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to allow the present writ petition by issuing a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also while reiterating the contents made in the counter submits that the petitioner has not worked physically from 5.12.2014 to 30.6.2016 to earn any increment and the action taken by the temple is absolutely in accordance with rules and the guidelines issued by the Government and particularly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.128, dated 28.3.2014, therefore absolutely there are no merits warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the material on record. 7 8. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that Rule 36 of G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 8.12.2000 makes it clear that the special provisions mentioned in Rule 37 to 47 shall apply to the 8 Major Institutions except Rules 5 and 16. With regard to age of superannuation, Rule 9 specifies that the age of superannuation shall be 58 years. All the Rules made in G.O.Ms.No.888 are applicable to all the employees ofTemples in A.P including Rule-9. 9. It is further observed that, since the age of superannuation given in Rule 9, to be 58 years the rule was specifically amended in G.O.ms.no.479. Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 21.11.2016 indicating that the orders shall come into force w.e.f 1`.10.2016 and the further amendment issued through G.O.ms.No.128 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 28.3.2017 makes it cellar that the amendment shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. 2.6.2014 and the employees who were superannuated in the interregnum period from 2.6.2014 and 30.9.2016 shall be re-inducted into service/post as such, w.e.f date of issue of this order, and continued in service till attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years.. 10. 10. As per G.O.Ms.No.1228, dated 28.3.2017, the employees, who have already crossed 60 years; their services shall be deemed to have been continued, till the date of attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years and that the interregnum period between 2.6.2014 and 30.09.2016 shall be treated as Leave, to which the employee is eligible; and in case no leave is due, the period shall be treated as Extraordinary Leave. 8 11. In the present case, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in Rc No.A1/888/2014, dated .. .03.2021 indicating that as on the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e., 30.06.2014, 61 days of HPL and 45 days of EL a total 106 days balance was available in his leave account. So, as stated by learned Government Pleader that, as per G.I.Ms.No.128 dated 28.3.2017 the period may be regularized and one increment due on 01.10.2014 may be sanctioned as per the willingness of the petitioner. In the said proceedings, it is made clear that if the petitioner does not agree to the said arrangement, he would not be entitled to the increment. Moreover, the petitioner has not worked physically from 5.12.2014 to 30.6.2016 to earn any increment and it appears that the action taken by the temple is absolutely in accordance with the rules and guidelines issued by the Government. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, whatever the action has been taken by the respondents is in accordance with the rules and the guidelines issued by the Government and particularly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 28.03.2017. Therefore, this Court no merits in the instant writ petition, warrants no interference, and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : -04-2025 Gvl 9 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITON No.18731 of 2022 Date : 10.04.2025 Gvl