IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 39247 OF 2018 Between: Uppalapati Krishnam Raju, S/o Gangu Raju, Aged 62 years, Occ: Retd. Employee, R/ o Bommavaram Village, Obulavaripally Mandal, Kadapa District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Industries Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. M/s Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., 294 /ID Tadigadapa to Enikepadu 100 Ft Road, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada-521137, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not extending the benefit of Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Golden Jubilee Navajeevodaya Plan Scheme to the petitioner on par with other 263 retired employees as arbitrary, illegal, offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefits under the above said scheme to the petitioner on par with other retired employees of the 2nd respondent as on 01-02-2011. may lA NO: 1 OF 2nift 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 to extend the benefits under the Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Golden Jubilee Plan Scheme to the petitioner Andhra Navajeevodaya par with other retired employees of the 2nd respondent as on 01-02-2011, pending disposal of the above writ petition. on Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N JEEVAN KUMAR (SC FOR APMDC) The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010814372018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 39247/2018 Between: UPPALAPATl KRISHNAM RAJU, S/0. GANGU RAJU, AGED 62 YEARS. OCC. RETD. EMPLOYEE, R/ O BOMMAVARAM VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLY MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.M/S.ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, 294 /ID TADIGADAPA TO ENIKEPADU 100 FT ROAD. KANURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA-521137, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE (AP) 2.NJEEVAN KUMAR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for; “.... a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2^^ respondent in not extending the benefit of Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Golden Jubilee Navajeevodaya Plan Scheme to the petitioner on par with other 263 retired employees as arbitrary, illegal. % 2 offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefits under the above said scheme to the petitioner on par with other retired employees of the 2"^ respondent as on 01-02-2011.” Heard Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce and Sri N.Jeevan Kumar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Andhra Pradesh Mineral Corporation Limited, on the occasion of Golden Jubilee, proposed to implement APMDC Golden Jubilee’ Navajeevodaya Plan Scheme to its 263 employees, who were in service of the Corporation on pay rolls as on 01.02.2011 and entrusted the assignment to the Life Insurance Corporation of Learned counsel would further submit that, as per the said understanding, the employees of the Corporation would be paid an additional amount @ 30% basic pay on their retirement as monthly monetary benefits plus family benefits of 50% to the spouse. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioner joined in service of Respondent No.2 in the year 1976 as a daily wager worker and subsequently he became a permanent employee of the Corporation in 2005 in the post of Sampler / Grader. It is submitted that, in view of the discrepancy over the date of birth of the Petitioner, he approached this Court in W.P.No.9976 of 2008, wherein. Respondent No.2 was directed by this Court to consider his date of birth as 01.08.1956 instead of 03.09.1949. 2. 3. India. Against the said order, Respondent No.2 preferred W.A.No.872 of 2012 and 3 the same was dismissed. The SLP No. 10224 of 2013 preferred by Respondent No.2 before the Hon’ble Apex Court was also dismissed. As such, his date of birth was considered as 01.08.1956 and the same was entered in the relevant registers of the Corporation and subsequently, on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years, the Petitioner retired from services on 31.07.2016. Learned counsel would further submit that, as on the date of induction of the Golden Jubilee Scheme, the Petitioner was in service and as such, the Petitioner is entitled to get the benefits under the said scheme on par with the other retired employees of the Corporation. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce would submit that. Respondent No.2 - Corporation has to pay the said amount to the Petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that. Board of Directors of the Corporation has to be constituted and the same has to consider the grievance of the Petitioner. Admittedly, Petitioner is permanently employed in Respondent No.2 - Corporation in the year 2005. During his service, on noticing that his date of 6. birth was wrongly entered in the records as 03.09.1949 instead of 01.08.1956 the Petitioner made an application to Respondent No.2 for rectification of the same. As the same was not considered by Respondent No.2, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9976 of 2008 seeking a direction to Respondent No.2 to rectify his date of birth, and the same was allowed by this 4 Court vide Order dated 23.04.2012 directing Respondent No.2 to rectify the date of birth of the Petitioner by considering the same as 01.08.1956. Further, there is no dispute about the dismissal of the Writ Appeal No.872 of 2012 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, filed by Respondent No.2, confirming the order passed in W.P.No.9976 of 2008. It is also not in dispute that S.L.P.No.10224 of 2013 filed by Respondent No.2 before the Hon’ble Apex Court was also dismissed vide Order dated 01.07.2013. Subsequently, the Petitioner’s date of birth was considered 01.08.1956 and the same was also entered in the B-Register maintained by Respondent No.2-Corporation and also in Form-9 Register maintained by Employees’ Provident Fund Organization. During pendency of the grievance of the Petitioner before this Court and before the Hon’ble Apex Court, as the age of superannuation of the employees of Respondent No.2- Corporation was 58 years and as the Petitioner attained the same, he retired from service on 30.09.2007 on the 7. as 8. basis of his date of birth as 03.09.1949. However, subsequently, in view of the rectification of the date of birth of the Petitioner as 01.08.1956 and the enhancement of the age of superannuation of the employees of Respondent No.2 - Corporation from 58 years to 60 years, the Petitioner was continued in service and on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years, he retired from service on 31.07.2016. 9. Admittedly, the date of implementation of APMDC Golden Jubilee Navajeevodaya Plan Scheme to the employees of Respondent No.2 - 5 Corporation was 01.02.2011. As seen from the above facts, as on 01.02.2011, the Petitioner was the employee of Respondent No.2 - Corporation and the same is not denied by either of the Respondents. Though it is the contention of Respondent No.2 - Corporation that the Board has to decide the grievance of the Petitioner, as seen from the Letter No.129832/Estt./A2/2016, dated 30.12.2024 which was addressed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Department to Respondent No.2, the Board as to decide the implementation of said Scheme to the employees of Respondent No.2, who retired prior to 01.02.2011, but not subsequent thereto. The representations dated 02.01.2018, 28-08.2018 and 26.09.2018 of the Petitioner to extend the benefits of the above said scheme and to pay the pension to him on par with other permanent employees, were not considered by Respondent No.2. 10. As discussed above, in view of the fact that the Petitioner was well within service as on 01.02.2011. In such circumstances, the Petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the said scheme on par with the other employees of the Respondent No.2- Corporation, who were in service as on the date of the said scheme. Therefore, there is force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the Respondentsto extend the benefits under APMDC Golden Jubilee Navajeevodaya Plan Scheme to the Petitioner on par with the other 263 retired employees of 6 , immediately after receipt of copy of this Respondent No.2 - Corporation There shall be no order as to costs. order. miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand As a sequel thereto closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as the Chief Justice Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur on Fourth Day of June, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. //TRUE COPY// above witness that Hon’ble this Tuesday, Twenty Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SEC^rfeiOFTOER To, of Industries Velagapudi 1. The Principal Secretary Department Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Vice Chairman and Managing Erector M/s Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., 294 /ID ' Enikepadu, 100^ Ft Road, Kanuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada-521137. 3. One CC to Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, Advocate [OPUC] Sri N Jeevan Kumar (SC for APMDC), Advocate [OPUC] Industries & Commerce, High Court of Andhra 4. One CC to 5. Two CCs to GP for Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:24/06/2025 ORDER WP.No.39247 of 2018 i allowing the W.P., WITHOUT COSTS