APHC010631852022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos: 37794, 18330, 22727, 23417, 26965, 27802, 37802 and 39467 of 2022 W.P.No: 37794 of 2022:- Between: K S Prakasha Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B RAGHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. E V JAGANNADHA RAO (SC FOR AP STATE HOUSEING COOP LTD) 2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following Common Order: These writ petitions are filed declaring the delay and inaction on the part of the respondents in enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years for the employees working in 3rd respondent-Corporation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, 2 illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequential direction to direct the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years on par with the Government employees in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 issued by the 1st respondent. 2. As the issue involved in all the writ petitions are one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as for disposal by a common order. 3. Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore, W.P.No.37794 of 2022 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein are hereinafter referred to for convenience. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been working as the Assistant Engineer in the 3rd respondent-corporation. The age of superannuation for the employees of the 3rd respondent is 60 years as per Rule No.21 of A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited General Service Rules and going to retire from service at the age of 60 years on 30.11.2022. While so, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 enhancing the age of superannuation of Government employees from 60 years to 62 years as per the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of age of superannuation) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022 with effect from 01.01.2022. Several public sector institutions extended the same benefit to their employees. But the 3rd 3 respondent has not issuing orders enhancing the age of superannuation of their employees from 60 years to 62 years. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. This Court, vide order, dated 22.11.2022 in W.P.No.37794 of 2022, directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in service, without observing the date of superannuation i.e., 30.11.2022. 6. The pleadings which are cited by the petitioner in W.P.No.37794 of 2022, the same are adopted by the other petitioners in all the remaining writ petitions. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I as well as learned Standing Counsel for A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, for the respondents. 8. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petitions, submits that, the age of superannuation has been extended to the employees in Government service, keeping in view the experience and expertise of senior employees and considered the increased life expectancy. Hence, the action of the 3rd respondent in not extending the benefit to the petitioners and retiring the employees without extending the age of superannuation is unjust, arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 4 9. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I opposed for allowing these writ petitions and prayed to dismiss the same. 10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the corporation has furnished a copy of the proceedings of Special Chief Secretary to Government vide letter No.1669176/VC.A2/2022-2, dated 18.07.2024 and submits that, in pursuance of the board resolution, the Managing Director, APSHCL, for extension of enhancing of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to its employees was rejected. Therefore, there is no merit in the instant petition and prayed to dismiss the writ petitions. 11. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to grant liberty to challenge the said proceedings. 12. Perused the record. 13. On a perusal of the proceedings vide letter No.1669176/VC.A2/ 2022-2, dated 18.07.2024, the relevant para is extracted hereunder: “......Government in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 6, Chapter-I of A.P.S.H.C.L. Service Rules, 1998, issued vide G.O.Ms.No.33, Housing (RH) Department, dated 26.05.1998, the proposal of the Managing Director, A.P.S.H.C.L. for extension of „enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years‟ to employees of A.P. State Housing Corporation based on the resolution passed by the Board of A.P.S.H.C.L. during the 27th Board of Directors Meeting held on 22.03.2022, is hereby rejected...” 14. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the opinion that, in 5 view of the subsequent development and since the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication, this Court is inclined to close all the writ petitions, granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the above said proceedings. 15. Accordingly, all these Writ Petitions are closed. However, granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the proceedings issued by the Special Chief Secretary to Government vide Lr.No.1669176/VC.A2/2022-2, dated 18.07.2024 before the appropriate authority, in accordance with law. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS