APHC010198402023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 10271/2023 Between: 1. VELISETTY RATNAM, W/O MADASU VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 60YRS, OCC. JUNIOR LECTURER (ZOOLOGY) DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM VATLURU VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL ELURU DISTRICT WRIT PETITION IS WITHDRAWN SO FAR AS PETITIONER NO.1 IS CONCERNED AS PER C.O. DT 26.09.2025 VIDE IA NO.1/2025 2. DEVALAPALLE VENKATRAMANA REDDY, S/O THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60YRS, PHYSICAL DIRECTOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM RAMAKU.PPAM VILLAGE, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. POLU NARAYANA REDDY, S/O ANKI REDDY AGED ABOUT 60YRS, OCC. LAB ATTENDER, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM RAYACHOOTI VILLAGE, RAYACHOOTY MANDAL ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT 4. ALLA RAVEENDRA REDDY, S/O SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60YRS, OCC. JUNIOR LECTURER (ZOOLOGY) DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM TSUNDURU 2 VILLAGE, TSUNDURU MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT 5. CHALLAGALI NEHEMAIAH, SR) PAUL AGED ABOUT 60YRS, OCC. TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (SOCIAL) DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM VELUGONDA VILLAGE, K K MITLA MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT 6. LRUPANI LAKSHMINARASIMHAM, S/O ANKAIAH AGED ABOUT 60YRS, OCC. LAB ATTENDER DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM PEDDAPAVANI VILLAGE, GUDLUR MANDAL S P S R NELLURE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE (HR.IV.FRANDLR) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. A P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY, MOKSHA SAI PLAZA, TADEPALLI GUNTUR DISTRICT REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY 4. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMHERIKAR GURNICULAM VATLURU VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL ELURU DISTRICT 5. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM RAMAKUPPAM VILLAGE, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3 6. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM RAYACHOOTI VILLAGE, RAYACHOOTI MANDAL ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT 7. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM TSUNDURU VILLAGE, TSUNDURU MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT 8. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMHEDKAR GUNILCULARN VELUGONDA VILLAGE, K K MITLA MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT 9. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM PEDDA PAVANI VILLAGE, GUDLUR MANDAL S P S R NELLORE 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare delay and inaction on the part of respondents in issuing the orders for enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees' working in the 31d respondent society from 60yrs to 62yrs in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dt.31-01-2022 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to issue orders enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees' working in 3rd respondent society from 60yrs to 62yrs in terms of G.o.Ms.No.15, dt.31-01-2022 issued by the 2nd respondent forthwith in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service beyond 60yrs till the respondents take decision for enhancing the age of 4 superannuation of the employees working in 3rd respondent society in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dt.31-01-2022 issued by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2023 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 Pleased to vacate the Interim Orders passed in IA No. 1 of 2023 in WP No. 10271 of 2023 Dt. 24-04-2023 in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition No. 10271 of 2023 to the extent of the petitioner no.l only in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PARTY IN PERSON 2. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM 2. GP FOR SERVICES I 3. GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO: 12019/2024 Between: 1. V SREERAMULU, S/O V PAKEERU NAIDU( LATE) AGE 60 YEARS, OCC- POST GRADUATE TEACHER (TELUGU) 5 H.NO 1-0, SIVALAYAM VEEDHI BOBBIN MANDALAM, BOBBILI, VIZIANAGARAM BOBBILI VIZIANAGARANN- 535558. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, AND VICE CHAIRMAN, A.P.S.W.R.E.I SOCIETY, SECRETARITE BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRACT, A.P 2. THE STATE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY, REP, BY ITS SECRETARY TADEPALLI, GUNDUR DISTRICT .A.P 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE ( H R IV F R AND L R ) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.A.P 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. A.P 5. THE DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, APSWREI SOCIETY, VIZIANAGARAM 6. THE PRINCIPAL, THE PRINCIPAL, DR. B R AMBEDKAR, GURUKULAM SCHOOL AND COLLAGE, P N BODDAVALASA, SALURU, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM. RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO 6 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 21.08.2024 VIDE I.A.NO.2 OF 2024 IN WP NO. 12019 OF 2024 6 ...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 topleased may be Pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or orders direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare delay and inaction on the part of respondents in issuing the orders for enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees working in the 2nd respondents, in the terms of G. O. Ms. No 15, dated 31-01-2022. But the 2nd respondent issued a proceeding Rc No HR-1/179570/2017 dated 23/01/2024 to retire from service on the attaining the age 60 years, and consequently direct the respondents to implementing the age of superannuation from 60 year to 62 years as per, G.O.Ms. No 15 Finance (HR.IV- FR and LR) Department dated 31-01-2022 and in the interest and IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service of 62 years till the respondents take decision for enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees workings in the 2nd respondent society in terms of G.O Ms. No. 15 dated 31-01-2022 and pending disposal of the write petition in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 pleased to permit the petitioner to implead the proposed respondents as respondent Nos .4, 5 and 6 in the above W.P .No. 12019 of 2024 Consequently directed the respondents 4 ,5, and 6 to implement the interim order pass in I.A 1 of 2024 dated 20-06- 2024 7 IA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.N0.I of 2024 in W.P.No.12019 of 2024, dated 20-06-2024 in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 "may be pleased to grant leave to file Counter Affidavit in WP.No.12019 of 2024 before this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice"pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH S V SURAJ Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM 2. GP FOR SERVICES III 3. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 12710/2024 Between: 1. ARAVA RADHA, D/O RAMA KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YRS, OCC- PGT (TELUGU) DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM JUNIOR COLLEGE GIRLS RAJAMANDRY VILLAGE, RAJAMANDRY MANDAL EAST GOWADARY DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 8 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPT. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE (HR.IV.FR AND LR) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. A P SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY, MOKSHA SAI PLAZA, TADEPALLI GUNTUR DISTRICT REPT. BY ITS SECRETAR 4. THE PRINCIPAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GUMKULAM BOYS DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM JUNIOR COLLEGE GIRLS RAJAMANDRY TOWN, RAJAMANDRY MANDAL EAST GOWADAVARI 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 tomay be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service beyond 60yrs till the respondents take decision for enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees working in 3rd respondent society in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dt.31-01-2022 issued by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare delay and inaction on the part of respondents in issuing the orders for enhancing the age of 9 superannuation of the employees working in the 3rd respondent society from 60yrs to 62yrs in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dt.31-01- 2022 issued by the 2 respondent as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to issue orders enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees’ working in 3'"' respondent society from 60yrs to 62yrs in terms of G.o.Ms.No.15, dt.31- 01-2022 issued by the 2nd respondent forthwith in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM 2. GP FOR SERVICES I 3. GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO: 12739/2024 Between: 1. K RAMESH KUMAR, S/O KAZA LAKSHMI NARAYANA AGE 60 YEARS, OCC- PHYSICAL DIRECTOR, GRADE -II APSWREI SOCIETY. DR. BR AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM TIRUVURU, NTR DISTRICT-521235 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, AND VICE CHAIRMAN, A.P.S.W.R.E.I SOCIETY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRACT, A.P 10 2. THE STATE ANDHRA PRADESH, SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY REP, BY ITS SECRETARY TADEPALLI, GUNDUR DISTRICT.A.P 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE (HR IVF R AND LR) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT.A.P 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECERATRY OF ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI A.P 5. THE DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, APSWREI SOCIETY, N T R DISTRICT 6. THE PRINCIPAL, DR. B R AMBEDKAR, GURUKULAM(B) TIRUVURU, N T R DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 10.07.2025 VIDE IA.NO.2 OF 2024 IN WP.NO.12739 OF 2024. ...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 toPleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or orders direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare inaction on the part of 2nd respondents in issuing the orders / proceeding Rc No HR- 1/179570/2017 dated 23/01/2024 to retire from service on the attaining the age 60 years and not enhancing the age of 62 years of superannuation of the employees working in the 2nd respondents, in the terms of G. O. Ms. No 15, dated 31-01-2022 which is totally illegal, arbitrary and violate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and Principle of Natural justice and consequently direct to the respondents to reinstate and continue 11 the petitioner into the service of 62 years and implementing the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years as per, G.O.Ms. No 15 Finance (HR.IV-FR and LR) Department dated 31-01-2022 and in the interest and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate and continue the petitioner in the service of 62 years and till the respondents take decision for enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees workings in the 2nd respondent society in terms of G.O Ms. No. 15 dated 31-01-2022 and pending disposal of the write petition in the interest of justice end pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 pleased to permit the petitioner to implead the proposed respondents as respondent No's 4,5 and 6th in the above W.P .No. 12739 of 2024 and consequentially direct the respondents 4,5 and 6th to implement the interim orders pass in I. A. 1 of 2024 dated 25-06-2024 and such other order pending disposal the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.12739 of 2024, dated 25-06-2024 in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 12 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 "may be pleased to grant leave to file Counter WP.No.12739 of 2024 before this Affidavit in Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice"pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH S V SURAJ Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM 2. GP FOR SERVICES III 3. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 13526/2024 Between: 1. MODAGALA RAMACHANDRAIAH, S/O NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC- TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MATHS), ATCHAMPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE H R IV F R AND L R DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT A P. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF SEHOOL EDUCATION AND VICE CHAIRMAN A P S W R E I SOCIETY, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, A.MARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRACT A P. 13 3. ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT A P. ...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 tomay be pleased to issue any Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents, in not extending the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years even though the government had issued GO.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 is Illegal , violation of principals of Natural justice and contrary to Sei-vice Rules and also Art 14,16,21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to extend the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years with all consequential benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents particularly to continue the petitioner pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.13526 of 2024, dated;04-07-2024 in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the 14 petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to file Counter Affidavit in WP.No. 13526 of 2024 before this Hon’bie Court in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V L MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM 2. GP FOR SERVICES III 3. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 13571/2024 Between: 1. CH S V ACHYUTA SHARMA, S/O VENKATA KANAKA DURGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC-JUNIOR LECTURER, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM JR. COLLEGE, KOTHURU, ANAPARTHY MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE H R IV F R AND L R DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT A P. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND VICE CHAIRMAN A P S W R E I SOCIETY, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRACT A P. 3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE 15 RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT A P. ...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 tomay be pleased to issue any Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandsimus declare the action of the respondents, in not extending the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years even though the government had issued GO.Ms.No.l5, dated 31.01.2022 is Illegal , violation of principals of Natural justice and contrary to Service Rules and also Art 14,16,21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to extend the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years with all consequential benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents particularly to continue the petitioner pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.13571 of 2024, dated 09-07-2024 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 16 1. G V L MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM 2. GP FOR SERVICES III 3. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 15161/2024 Between: 1. K BASAVA LINGAIAH, S/O LATE K.M. PRASAD AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC SUPERINTENDENT, APSWREIS HEAD OFFICE, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT A P. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE H R IV F R AND L R DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT A P. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND VICE CHAIRMAN A P S W R E I SOCIETY, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRACT A P. 4. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION, INSTITUTION SOCIETY, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR 17 DISTRICT A P. ...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 topleased to issue any Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents, in not extending the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years even though the government had issued GO.Ms.No. 15, dated 31.01.2022 is Illegal , violation of principals of Natural justice and contrary to Service Rules and also Art 14,16,21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to extend the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years with and consequential benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to direct the respondents particularly to continue the petitioner pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in IANo.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.15161 of 2024, dated 19-07-2024 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V L MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 18 1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM 2. GP FOR SERVICES III 3. GP FOR SERVICES I 4. GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO: 16193/2024 Between: 1. CH VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O GOPAIAH, AGED-60 YEARS, OCC-ART TEACHER, R/O DOOR NO. 14-232, RAJUPETA, TIRUVURU, NTR DISTRICT - 521235. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (HR IV-FR AND LR), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MOKSHA SAI PLAZA, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COORDINATOR, ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY, OFFICE AT CM GUEST HOUSE CAMPUS, BEHIND PWD GROUNDS, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 19 5. THE PRINCIPAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM SCHOOL AND COLLEGE, KRISHNARAOPALEM VILLAGE, A. KONDURU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT- 521226. ...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 toMay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking steps for enhancement of Petitioners Age of Superannuation from 60 to 62 years, inspite of proposals sent by the 3rd respondent society through his Letter vide Rc.No.A- 15019/1/2022-GEN, dated 20.07.2022, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in his post in the school and college of 5th respondent, till he attains age of superannuation of 62 years as per the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, by duly considering the proposals sent by the 3rd respondent dated 20,07,2022 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 May be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in his post in the school and college of 5th respondent, till he attains age of superannuation of 62 years as per the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 and by duly considering the proposals sent by the 3rd respondent dated 20.07.2022, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 20 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.16193 of 2024, dated 29-07-2024 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NOOKA JAGANNADHAM 2. GP FOR SERVICES III 3. GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO: 18557/2024 Between: 1. PULLETI KURTHI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA JYOTHI, W/O T. RAMA RAJU AGE 60 YEARS, OCC- TGT -SOCIAL DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM, VIYYAMPETA, KOTTAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. HOUSE .NO 1-9-12/24, A 4 SECTOR-1, MVP COLONY VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, L B COLONY VISAKHAPATNAM -530017 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT A.P.S.W.R.E.I OF DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRACT, A.P 21 2. DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, VICE CHAIRMAN, A.P.S.W.R.E.I SOCIETY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRACT, A.P 3. THE STATE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY, REP, BY ITS SECRETARY TADEPALLI, GUNDUR DISTRICT .A.P 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. A.P 5. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE ( H R IV F R AND L R ) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. A.P 6. DISTRICT COORDINATOR OF APSWREIS, VIZIANAGARAM. 7. THE PRINCIPAL, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM, VIYYAMPETA, KOTTAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM ...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or orders direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare delay and inaction on the part of respondents in issuing the orders for enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees working in the 2nd respondents, in the terms of G. O. Ms. No 15, dated 31-01-2022 and proposal for enhancing the age of Superannuation from 60 to 62 years on the par with state Government Employees by the 22 secretary of A.P.S.W.R.E.I.Society dated 20-07-2022. But the 2nd respondent issued a proceeding Rc No HR-1/179570/201 7 dated 02/07/2024 to retire from service on the attaining the age 60 years, and consequently direct the respondents to implementing the age of superannuation from 60 year to 62 years as per, G.O.Ms. No 15 Finance (HR.IV-FR and LR) Department dated 31-01-2022 and also as per the recommendation by the secretary of A.P.S.W.R.E.I. Society dated 20- 07-2022 to the petitioner, in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service of 62 years till the respondents take decision for enhancing the age of superannuation of the employees workings in the 2nd respondent society in terms of G.O Ms. No. 15 dated 31-01-2022 and also as per the recommendation by the secretary of A.P.S.W.R.E.I.Society dated 20-07- 2022, pending disposal of the write petition in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.18557 of 2024, dated 23-08-2024 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH S V SURAJ Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 23 2. GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO: 19905/2024 Between: 1. M ANIL KUMAR, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED. 60 YEARS, OCC. PRINCIPAL (GRADE-I), R/O PLOT NO.106, CBR RESIDENCY, NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (HR IV-FR AND LR), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MOKSHA SAI PLAZA, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COORDINATOR, ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY, TIRUPATI, ERSTWHILE SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, (PRESENTLY TIRUPATHI DISTRICT). 5. THE PRINCIPAL, DR. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MOKSHA SAI PLAZA, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COORDINATOR, ANDHRA PRADESH SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SOCIETY, TIRUPATI, ERSTWHILE SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, (PRESENTLY TIRUPATHI DISTRICT). 5. THE PRINCIPAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR GURUKULAM SCHOOL AND COLLEGE, CHILLAKUR, ERSTWHILE SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, (PRESENTLY TIRUPATI DISTRICT) 24 ...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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not taking steps for enhancement of Petitioner's Age of Superannuation from 60 to 62 years, inspite of proposals sent by the 3rd respondent society through his Letter vide Rc.No.A- 15019/1/2022-GEN, dated 20.07.2022, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in his post in the school and college of 5th respondent, till he attains age of superannuation of 62 years as per the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, by duly considering the proposals sent by the 3rd respondent dated 20.07.2022 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in his post in the school and college of 5th respondent, till he attains age of superannuation of 62 years as per the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 and by duly considering the proposals sent by the 3rd respondent dated 20.07.2022 and also pay the salaries to the petitioners every month, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to vacate the Interim Order dated: 11.09.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No. 25 19905 of 2024 and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAVI KUMAR PONAKAMPALLI 2. GP FOR SERVICES I 3. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 26 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.10271 of 2023 and 12019, 12710, 12739, 13526, 13571, 15161, 16193, 18557 and 19905 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: The common issue in all the writ petitions is with regard to the enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years as per G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022. 2. The Petitioners are working in Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (herein after referred to as ‘APSWREIS’ for brevity) in teaching faculty. Originally, the age of superannuation of the employees of the Society, other than class IV employees, was 58 years. While so, the State Government issued A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Amendment Act, 2014, enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years to the State Government employees vide G.O.Ms.No.147, dated 30.06.2014. 27 3. Thereafter, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 27.06.2017, according approval to enhance the age of superannuation to employees working in institutions listed in Schedules IX and X of the A.P.Re-organization Act, 2014 subject to the decision of the Board of Directors/ Managing Committees of the respective legal entities. Subsequently, the State Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.138, dated 08.08.2017, enhancing the age of superannuation of employees in Schedules IX and X of the A.P.State Re-organization Act, 2014 stating that employees shall not be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years and shall be continued up to 60 years. Consequently, the employees of the Respondent-Society continued till the age of 60 years. 4. While so, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022, amending the A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, by enhancing the age of superannuation to 62 years. Consequently, Respondent-Society is said to have been sent a proposal to State Government for enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years on par with State Government employees. Since no further steps 28 are taken on the proposals of the Respondent-Society, the present writ petitions are filed seeking for continuance till the Petitioners attaining the age of 62 years. 5. In the counter filed by APSWREIS, it is stated that the Society was created vide G.O.Ms.No.118, Social Welfare (Q) Department, dated 17.11.1983 for providing quality education to the talented children belonging to Scheduled Caste community coming mainly from the rural areas and vide G.O.Ms.No.245, Social Welfare (Q) Department, dated 03.10.1986, the Respondent-Society was constituted to supervise, control and manage the Social Welfare Residential Institutions in the State. 6. It is stated that Respondent-Society is registered under the A.P.Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli and the Management of the Society is vested in Board of Governors with Hon’ble Minister for Social Welfare as Chairman and the Principal Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department as Vice- Chairman and other Government Officials as Members. It is the further plea that Respondent-Society is an autonomous body receiving 100% Grant-in-Aid funds from the State Government and is a distinct entity. It is stated that the State Government had issued a clarification vide circular dated 23.09.2022 stating 29 that the Amendment Act is applicable only to certain categories and that the enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years is not applicable to the employees of Respondent-Society. It is further pleaded that employees working in Respondent- Society are governed by separate Bye-laws and the G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 cannot be extended to the benefit of the Petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Respondent-Society is a Government entity and there cannot be any discrimination in matters of age of superannuation. It is further pleaded that the benefit of age of superannuation should be extended to the Petitioners also as they are Government employees for all practical purposes. The further contention of learned counsel is that Education and Teaching are obligations of the State and the benefit of the age of superannuation should be extended akin to all the teaching faculties in the State irrespective of whether they are employees of the Society or teachers in the schools run by the State Government. The learned counsels also pointed out the difference in age of superannuation in similar Society established for the purpose of Backward Classes i.e. Mahatma Jyothiba Phule Andhra Pradesh Backward Class 30 Welfare Residential Institution Society (for brevity ‘MJPAPBCWRIS’), where the age of superannuation is at par with Government employees i.e. 62 years. 8. Learned standing counsel and learned Government Pleader would contend that age of superannuation is governed by the Bye-laws framed by the Society and the Petitioners, being fully aware of the age of superannuation prescribed under the Bye-laws, cannot turn around and seek for continuation beyond the age specified in the Bye-laws. It is further submitted that the enhancement of age of superannuation is a policy decision to be taken by the State Government and unless and until the Bye-laws are amended, the mere recommendation by the Board of Directors/ Managing Committee of the Respondent-Society would not suffice. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in G.Rama Mohan Rao and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary and Chairman, Agricultural Marketing and Co- operative Department and another1 and a judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22719 of 2022 and batch dated 30.08.2023. 1 2017 (3) ALT 1 31 9. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned standing counsel and learned Government Pleader. 10. The A.P.Social Welfare Residential Educational Institution Society (APSWREIS) is established for improving the quality of education for the talented children belonging to Scheduled Caste community and an independent legal entity with its Bye-laws governing the conditions of services. The Bye-laws of the Society provide for Cadre Strength, Method of Appointment and Appointing Authority, Qualifications & Other Conditions of Recruitment, Disciplinary Rules, Unit of Appointment etc., among other conditions of service. The Rule 13 provides for age of superannuation. The same reads as under: 13: Every APSWREI Society employee shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he/she attains the age of sixty years. 11. This age of superannuation was enhanced to 60 years vide G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 27.06.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.138, dated 08.08.2017. In the light of the same, the employees of the Respondent-Society are continuing till the age of 60 years. 32 12. The amendment to the A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, whereunder the age of retirement was enhanced to 62 years vide G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, does not have any application to the employees of the Society as they are governed by independent rules and it is not an automatic amendment. In the light of the specific age of superannuation, the continuation of Petitioners beyond the age specified in the Bye-laws/ Rules would amount to virtual amendment to the Rule/Bye-law and the same is impermissible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.M. Gadre v. M.G. Diwan and Others2 held that even while exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it would not be permissible for the Court to substitute all the existing service conditions. The relevant portion at paragraph 10 is extracted below: “....While exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 142 it would not be permissible for the Court to substitute all the existing service conditions by a totally new set of service conditions.” 2 (1996) 3 SCC 454 33 13. The condition of service cannot be altered by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Prakasan M.P., and Others v. State of Kerala3, while dealing with the claim of enhanced age of superannuation, held that these are policy issues and it is not for Courts to prescribe a different age of superannuation. The relevant Paragraph thereof is extracted below; “11. It is well-settled that the age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of the State Government. It is not for the courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from the one applicable to Government employees 1 2023 Supreme (SC) 801 31 under the relevant service Rules and Regulations. Nor can the Court insist that once the State had taken a decision to issue a similar Government Order that would extend the age of retirement of the staff teaching in the Homeopathic Colleges as was issued in respect of different categories of teaching staff belonging to the Dental stream and the Ayurvedic stream, the said G.O. ought to have been made retrospective, as was done when G.O. dated 14th January, 2010 was issued by the State and given retrospective effect from 1st May, 2009. These are all matters of policy that engage the State Government. It may even elect to give the benefit of extension of age to a particular class of Government 3 2023 Supreme (SC) 801 34 employees while denying the said benefit to others for valid considerations that may include financial implications, administrative considerations, exigencies of service, etc.” 15. Similarly, in New Okhal Industrial Development Authority and Another v. B.D. Singhal and Others4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the age of superannuation is a policy matter and not for the Courts to venture into. The Paragraphs 22 and 26 thereof are extracted below; “22. Whether the age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance the age of superannuation, the date with effect from which the enhancement should be made falls within the realm of policy. The High Court in ordering that the decision of the State Government to accept the proposal to enhance the age of superannuation must date back to 29-6-2002 has evidently lost sight of the above factual background, more specifically (i) the rejection of the original 2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 466 proposal on 22-9-2009; and (ii) the judgment of the Division Bench dated 17-1-20124 refusing to set aside the order rejecting the proposal on 22-9-2009 which has attained finality. But there is a more fundamental objection to the basis of the decision of the High Court. The infirmity in the judgment lies in the fact that the High Court has trenched upon the realm of policy making and has assumed to itself, jurisdiction over a matter which lies in the domain of 4 2021 SCC OnLine SC 466 35 the executive. Whether the age of superannuation should be increased and if so, the date from which this should be effected is a matter of policy into which the High Court ought not to have entered.” “26. The High Court’s observation that the Government Order on 30-9-2012 increasing the age of superannuation prospectively is arbitrary seems to be based on the premise that the respondent employees have a vested right to the increase in the age of retirement on the passage of the resolution by Noida Authority. However, Section 19 of the Act stipulates that regulations — which would include amendments as in this case — will require the previous approval of the State Government. The employees will have a vested right to the increased age of superannuation only after the Service Regulations are modified upon approval of the State Government, and from such date as may be prescribed by the Government. Para 1(ii) of the Government Order issued on 30-9-2012 clearly and in unambiguous terms states that the order shall come into force prospectively. The government order can be given retrospective application only if expressly stated or inferred through necessary implication. Therefore, the respondent employees could not have claimed a vested right that the enhancement in the age of retirement should be made effective from the date on which Noida Authority had resolved to submit a proposal for the approval of the Government.” 36 16. A similar view was also taken in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das5 vis-a-vis rejecting the claim of parity of age of superannuation by Ayush Doctor working in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) with the enhanced age of superannuation with Ayush Doctors working in Ministry of Ayush and CGHS Hospitals. Paragraph 48 is extracted below: “48. We may only say that the entire approach of the High Court towards the present litigation was incorrect. We are a bit disappointed to observe that the High Court dealt with the present litigation in a very casual manner. First, the High Court went to the extent of granting interim relief extending the period of service beyond 60 years till the disposal of the Original Petition by the CAT. By virtue of such interim order which the High Court ordinarily should not grant, the respondent No. 1 although was to retire in 2018 yet continued in service till 2021. It is only when this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the High Court while issuing notice that the service of the respondent No. 1 came to an end. The Court or the Tribunal should, therefore, be slow and circumspect in granting interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated. But if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the High Court was 5 (2023) 16 SCC 462 37 conscious of the fact as very much recorded in the impugned order that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Research Assistant and was functioning as a Researcher under the Research Council and his service conditions were also different compared to the AYUSH doctors serving with the Ministry of AYUSH. The High Court misdirected itself saying that the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation can also be granted if the duties performed are the same like AYUSH doctors. We fail to understand how can the Court fix the age of superannuation of an employee saying that he is very much devoted towards his job. The age of superannuation is always governed by statutory rules & other service conditions.” 17. It is pertinent to note that a Division Bench of this Court in G.Rama Mohan Rao’s case (1 supra) was considering a scenario where exactly similar to the present one. At that point of time, the issue that fell for consideration was whether the employees of Respondent-Society are also entitled for enhanced age of superannuation i.e. 58 to 60 years on the basis of resolutions of the Respondent-Society. The Division Bench held that consent of the State Government is required and mere resolution of Respondent-Society would not suffice. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below: 183. The decision of the Board of Directors/Managing Committees to request the State Government to enhance the age of superannuation is tentative and not 38 final. It is subject to the proposal being accepted by the State Government. While some of these undertakings appear to be profit making, some appear to be fully funded by the State Government. The question whether enhancing the age of superannuation would increase its financial burden, which it finds it difficult to bear, are also matters to be considered by the State Government. These factors would vary from one undertaking to another.’ 190. The earlier G.Os were issued by the Government of A.P. without these legal entities amending its rules/regulations/byelaws, governing the age of superannuation and without the prior approval of the sole majority shareholder i.e., the State Government as required under the Articles of Association byelaws of these legal entities. As the Rules and Regulations, by which the petitioners are governed, stipulate 58 years as the age of retirement, these employees cannot claim any right to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. It is only if the request of these Companies/Corporations/Societies, for amendment of its byelaws/rules and regulations, are approved by the State Government, and the rules/byelaws/regulations are amended thereafter in accordance with law, would their employees then be governed by the enhanced age of superannuation prescribed under the Rules/bye-laws. 191. Since the Board owned Companies! Corporations/Societies have submitted proposals, the State Government is Directors/Managing Committees of these wholly or substantially government on their financial position, 39 genuineness of their need to enhance the age of superannuation etc, and then take a decision whether or not their request to enhance the age of superannuation of their employees from 58 to 60 years, should be approved. Suffice it, if the Government of A.P. is directed to consider the proposals submitted by each of these corporations/societies/companies, for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years in accordance tih law, and take a decision thereupon at the earliest, in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.’ 18. The said judgment was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch and a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.22719 of 2022 and batch. As regards the plea of parity in the age of superannuation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Teachers Association of Government Engineering College6 had rejected such a plea as the terms and conditions of service as well as method of recruitment are different, as in these cases. 19. In the light of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: 6 (2000 (10) SCC 527 40 (i) The State Government is directed to consider the feasibility for enhancement of age of superannuation of employees of Respondent-Society from 60 to 62 years as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) Till a concrete decision is taken by the State Government, the Petitioners and similar employees of Respondent-Society are not entitled for continuation beyond the age of 60 years. (iii) The Petitioners who have discharged duties pursuant to interim order of this Court shall be paid salary, however, the said period of service shall not be counted for calculating retirement benefits. (iv) No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 29.01.2026 KLP