1 APHC010834102017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 39319/2017 Between: 1. K.V.V. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,, S/O. LATE VEERRAJU,AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC.: JUNIOR ASSISTANT,0/O THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SETRAJ KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT RIO. H. NO. 23-14-5/4, 1ST FLOOR, SRIRAMNAGAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP, BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, YAT &C (YS) SPS DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE D APARTMENT,A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIETY FOR TRAINING EMPLOYMENT PROMOTION, APSTEP) REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSEB CITY CENTRE COLONY, DOOR NO. 39-2-19A/12, BEHIND LANE M.V.R. MALL, BANDAR ROAD, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA. 520010. 2 4. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF YOUTH SERVICES, & MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSTEP, AI SEB CITY CENTRE COIN-1Y, DOOR NO. 39-2- 19A/12, BEHIND LANE M.V.R. MALL, BANDAR ROAD, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA. 520010. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CHAIRMAN, STEP., EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SETRAJ, RAMANAYYAPETA KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI 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 to to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service with all consequential benefits up to the age of sixty years in accordance with law, statutory prescription and on the analogy of Orders granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in respect of similarly situated employees in SLP No. 14033-14044":017 dated 05- 05-2017 duly setting aside the set-aside the decision of the 3rd respondent society to retire employees at the age of 58 years as communicated vide impugned Memo No. 144/APSTEP/Admn/2014 dated 08-09-2017 and Memo No.1443/APSTEP/Admn/2014, dated 23- 01-2017 issued by the 4th respondent and the consequential notice of retirement issued by the 6th respondent in Proceedings No. 26/EsttISETRAJ/2005 dated 03-11- 2017 as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, discriminatory, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as amended from time to time and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the interest of justice anti to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) 3 2. GANGULA ASHOK KUMAR REDDY (SC FORAPSTEP) 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.39319 of 2017 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following main prayer: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service with all consequential benefits up to the age of sixty years in accordance with law, statutory prescription and on the analogy of Orders granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in respect of similarly situated employees in SLP No. 14033-14044/2017 dated 05- 05-2017 duly setting aside the set-aside the decision of the 3rd respondent society to retire employees at the age of 58 years as communicated vide impugned Memo No. 144/APSTEP/Admn/2014 dated 08-09-2017 and Memo No.1443/APSTEP/Admn/2014, dated 23- 01-2017 issued by the 4th respondent and the consequential notice of retirement issued by the 6th respondent in Proceedings No. 26/Estt/SETRAJ/2005 dated 03-11-2017…” 2. Heard arguments of Sri Meka Rahul Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Tourism who is also representing the Andhra Pradesh Society for Training and Employment Promotion (APSTEP). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is working as Junior Assistant in the A.P.Society. Hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as “APSTEP ”. In fact, “APSTEP” comes under Article 12 of the 5 Constitution of India. It has also been listed as one of the institution in Schedule IX of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has taken an administrative policy decision to enhance the age of superannuation of the employees from 58 years to 60 years with effect from 02.06.2014, thereby issued G.O.Ms.No.138 dated 08.08.2017, Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department. The learned counsel submits that, vide G.O.Ms.No.138, dated 08.08.2017, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has accorded in-principle approval to enhance the age of superannuation to 60 years to the employees, who are working in IX and X schedule institutions, subject to the condition that corporations /societies shall amend their relevant regulations/ Bye-laws accordingly. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court regarding the enhancement of age of employees towards superannuation orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10273 of 2017 and batch, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after taking into consideration the subsequent events, pleased to pass the following orders on 09.08.2017. “8. Be that as it may, learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh has today brought to our notice an order dated 08.08.2017 issued the Government of Andhra Pradesh whereby such employees have been granted the benefit of continuance up to 6 60 years of age. It has been ordered that the "said order dated 8.8.2017 shall come into force with effect from 02.06.2014" 9. In that view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to retain these appeals in this Court any further. The stand of the Government is very clear. The Government Order dated 08.08.2017 permitting the employees to continue up to the age of 60 years has come into effect with effect from 2.6.2014. Therefore, all employees who have superannuated on account of attainment of age of 58 years on 02.06.2014 or thereafter are entitled to the protection of their service up to 60 years of age and naturally to all consequential benefits arising therefrom. 10. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 1st respondent by taking into account all the aspects, issued G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 04.06.2020,Youth Advancement Tourism and Culture (Sps., & Ys) Department, where under the 1st Respondent - Government extended the benefit of the enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years to the employees of APSTEP and District Society for Training and Employment Promotion (DSsTEP) working in entire Andhra Pradesh state and permitting to reinstate the employees who retired on completion of 58 years of age and who have left over service to attain 60 years of age as on date, duly amending the Service Rule No. 22 and 27 of District SsTEP and APSTEP, subject to the condition to place the matter before the next managing committee meeting of APSTEP for the purpose of ratification. 7 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in similar facts and circumstances, this court in respect of APSTEP employees only passed common orders in W.P.No.30151 of 2018 and batch on 25.04.2025 and the instant case is also covers under the orders dated 25.04.2025 in W.P.No.30151 of 2018 and batch. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Tourism, who is also representing the APSTEP, not disputed the same. 9. Therefore, by taking into consideration of all the above facts and circumstances, in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court Orders dated 09.08.2017 and by following the orders dated 25.04.2025 in W.P.No.30151 of 2018 and batch, the present writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is eligible to get his service along with the consequential benefits till he attain the age of 60 years, if not already paid to him. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date:31.12.2025 RNS/ Dvs 8 210 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.39319 of 2017 Date:31.12.2025 RNS/ Dvs