1 APHC010269752023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 13941/2023 Between: 1. P RAVINDRANADH, S/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED 61 YEARS, R/O. PLOT NO. 46, COMMERCIAL TAXES COLONY, GURUNANAK ROAD, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REP., BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY . PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, APIIC COLONY AUTONAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (SEC.I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO. 2 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 17-08-2023 VIDE I.A.NO. 2 OF 2023 IN WP NO. 13941 OF 2023. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKAT SAILENDRA G Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) 2. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO SC For APPCB The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.13941 of 2023 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 17.05.2023 issued by the 1st respondent retiring the petitioner with effect from 31.03.2023 though he was working till 17.05.2023, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, without even issuing any notice, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. The petitioner was appointed in the 1st respondent-Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (for short, „the Board‟) in the year 1988 as Assistant Environmental Engineer. Thereafter, he was promoted as Environmental Engineer on 17.05.1997 and he was further promoted as Senior Environmental Engineer with effect from 26.08.2011. He was working as Senior Environmental Engineer till his retirement. As per the Service Rules and Regulations published by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.3 M.A., dated 01.01.1979, the age of retirement of the employees 4 of the Board is 55 years. But by following Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Method of appointment and conditions of service of the employees of the State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution Rules, 1978 (for short, „the Rules‟), the 1st respondent has continued their employees as per the service conditions of the employees of the State Government by extending the age of superannuation upto 60 years. The Board has not amended the rules by extending the age of superannuation of their employees from 55 to either 60 or 62 years. They have only followed the service conditions which are applicable to the Government employees. Accordingly, all the employees of the Board have continued upto the age of 60 years till 2022 before amending the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Ordinance, 2022. 4. Consequent to G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, the 1st respondent-Board has considered and issued proceedings on 07.02.2022 extending the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years. In the said proceedings, it was also referred the approval of Chairman of the Board. Accordingly, all the employees have continued till the date of impugned proceedings i.e., 17.05.2023. 5 Surprisingly, without notice, based on the clarification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 16.05.2023, the respondents have retired the petitioner from service on 31.03.2023. The said action is contrary to Service Rules more specifically Rule 24 of the Rules. Further, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in an identical situation in T.Saraswathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh1. Even in the above referred orders, the petitioners therein are also identically situated to that of the petitioner herein. Hence, the petitioner herein is also entitled to the same benefit. 5. Reply to the said contentions, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent-Board has made his submissions based on the averments made in the counter. Though he has not denied about Rule 24 of the Rules, the counsel has specifically contended that this Rule 24 of the Rules is applicable only when there is no specific provision in the Rules. But, in the instant case, Rule 18 of the Rules deals with superannuation of the employees. When there is a specific rule deals with superannuation of the employees, Rule 24 of the Rules 1 2026 SCC OnLine AP 268 6 is not applicable automatically. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022. Accordingly, as clarified by the Government in memo dated 16.05.2023, the petitioner‟s services have been discontinued on 17.05.2023 as he is not entitled to continue after 60 years. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel and also perused the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in T.Saraswathi‟s case (supra 1), wherein it was held at paragraph Nos.13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 as follows: “13. The Judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik 2 would also be relevant to the facts of this case. In the year 1975, Uttar Pradesh Water Sewerage Act,1975 was enacted and Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam was established and by virtue of the same, the employees of the Local Self- Government Engineering department became employees of the Jal Nigam on same terms and conditions as was in vogue to the employees till amendments were made as per Section 37 thereof. Subsequently, Regulations were framed in the year 1978, whereunder, the Regulation 31 provided for parity vis-a-vis Government employees and 2 (2005) 13 SCC 300 7 employees of the Jal Nigam. The Regulation 31 read as under; Regulation 31 “31. Besides the provision made under these Regulations, the pay and allowances, pension, leave, imposition of penalty and other terms and conditions of service shall be governed by such rules, regulations and orders which are equally applicable to other serving government servants concerned functioning in the State.” 14. After framing of the Regulations, the U.P State Government enhanced the age of superannuation to 60 years by amending U.P. Fundamental Rules. A general instruction was also issued by the U.P. State Government that the benefit shall not be extended to the employees of public sector undertakings. On a clarification sought by the U.P. Jal Nigam Local Self-Government Engineering Department, who became employees of the Jal Nigam, the U.P. Government clarified that the benefit is not extendable to those employees. In that context, the employees directly approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court questioning the same. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court taking note of Regulation 31 held that as long as Regulation 31 is not amended, the benefit of enhanced age cannot be denied. The Paragraphs 9 and 10 read as follows; 9. In the present case, as the Regulations have been framed by the Nigam specifically enumerating in 8 Regulation 31 thereof that the Rules governing the service conditions of government servants shall equally apply to the employees of the Nigam, it was not possible for the Nigam to take an administrative decision acting under Section 15(1) of the Act pursuant to the direction of the State Government in the matter of policy issued under Section 89 of the Act and directing that the enhanced age of superannuation of 60 years applicable to the government servants shall not apply to the employees of the Nigam. In our view, the only option for the Nigam was to make suitable amendment in Regulation 31 with the previous approval of the State Government providing thereunder the age of superannuation of its employees to be 58 years, in case it intended that 60 years which was the enhanced age of superannuation of the State Government employees should not be made applicable to the employees of the Nigam. It was also not possible for the State Government to give a direction purporting to act under Section 89 of the Act to the effect that the enhanced age of 60 years would not be applicable to the employees of the Nigam treating the same to be a matter of policy nor was it permissible for the Nigam on the basis of such a direction of the State Government in the policy matter of the Nigam to take an administrative decision acting under Section 15(1) of the Act as the same would be inconsistent with Regulation 31 which was framed by the Nigam in the exercise of 9 powers conferred upon it under Section 97(2)(c) of the Act. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that so long as Regulation 31 of the Regulations is not amended, 60 years which is the age of superannuation of government servants employed under the State of Uttar Pradesh shall be applicable to the employees of the Nigam. However, it would be open to the Nigam with the previous approval of the State Government to make suitable amendment in Regulation 31 and alter the service conditions of employees of the Nigam, including their age of superannuation. It is needless to say that if it is so done, the same shall be prospective. 15. On similar lines, as long as the Rules governing the conditions of services of the Petitioners gives parity on par with Government employees with reference to age of superannuation, it is not open to the Respondents to retire the Petitioners and other similarly placed on attaining the age of 60 years. 16. It would be relevant to mention Section 16 of the A.P Housing Board Act, which reads as under: 16. Application of Services Rules and Certain other rules. Unless otherwise provided in this Act or prescribed thereunder the provisions of the Service Rules for the time being in force in the State relating to 10 salaries, leave, pensions, traveling allowance, retirements and all conditions of service and the rules for the time being in force relating to the conduct of Government servants and enquiries into the conduct and punishment of Government servants, shall apply to the Officers and servants of the Board appointed under Section 17. 17. This Rule was interpreted by a Division Bench of the erstwhile Common High Court at Hyderabad in W.P.No.26495 and 26926 of 2015 dated 25.8.2015 and held that the above provision springs to life on enhancement of age of superannuation to Government employees and the employees of the Housing Board would be entitled to the enhanced age of superannuation automatically. In review petitions filed in similar cases i.e W.P.No.25188 of 2018 and batch, the Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the same on 19.11.2024. 18. Though the Division Bench of this Court in G.Rama Mohan Rao’s case (1 supra) held that the consent of the State Government is required, a distinction has to be noted vis-à-vis bye-laws of State-owned Corporations framed by Corporations themselves and where the State has a major stake and service conditions which are statutory in nature as in this case. It would not be correct to say that even in the face of statutory service conditions framed with the approval of the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.68, dated 10.05.2018, the consent of State Government would be required. The judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court referred supra addresses this 11 aspect and as long as Rule 14 as highlighted remains in the present form in the Rule book, the Respondents cannot deny enhanced age of superannuation to the Petitioners. 7. In the above referred matter, the facts are identical. Even in the instant case though Rule 18 of the Rules deals with age of superannuation of the staff of the Board, which prescribes the age of retirement is 55 years, the fact remains that without amendment to the said rule, the Board has continued the petitioner till 60 years as per the amendment made to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984. This Court is of the opinion that in terms of Rule 24 of the Rules, the Board has continued the petitioner till the age of 60 years only as per the amendment made to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent ought to have continued him till the age of 62 years as per G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022. If at all as observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment, if the 1st respondent-Board wants to discontinue their employees at the age of 60 years, they may choose to amend the service rules. 12 8. Considering the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in T.Saraswathi‟s case (supra 1), this Writ Petition is allowed holding that the petitioner is entitled to continue till the age of 62 years. It is needless to mention that if the petitioner has retired from service, he may only entitled to consequential benefits and if he is working, he is entitled to salaries for that period. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 01.04.2026 Ivd 13 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.13941 of 2023 Dated: 01.04.2026 Ivd