Abburi Yallamanda vs The Registrar General High Court ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2366 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2366 AP
Judgement Date : 5 May, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Abburi Yallamanda vs The Registrar General High Court ... on 5 May, 2022

Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

                                 AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

 ORDER:- (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)

       The present Writ Petition came to be filed, seeking

 issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of

 2nd respondent in not considering the representation dated

18.04.2022 i.e. to permit the petitioner to continue in service

as Head Clerk/Superintendent before III Additional District

Court, Ongole till he attain the age of 69 years as illegal,

arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner herein

retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation

as Superintendent, Principal District Judge Court, Ongole on

30.04.2017. Thereafter, he was appointed as Head Clerk in

the Court of III Additional District Court (Fast Track Court)

Ongole, in terms of Rule-9 of A.P. State Subordinate Service

Rules on 08.06.2017 and he continued in the said post till he

attained the age of 65 years, which was on 30.04.2022.

Having regard to the orders passed earlier in the case of

P.Subramanium Pillai, Head Clerk, Permanent Lok Adalat

(W.P.No.16605/2016) wherein he was allowed to work

beyond at the age of 65 years, the present Writ Petition came

to be filed seeking parity in terms of the order in

W.P.No.16605 of 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner

mainly relied upon the said judgment, seeking extension of

service till he attains the age of 69 years.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The issue involved is no more res-integra in view of the

orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.18234 of 2020 and

22024 of 2020. In W.P.No.18234 of 2020, an identical issue

came up for consideration, wherein, the request of the

petitioner to continue him in the post of Head Clerk in the

Court of III Additional District Judge (FTC), Kadapa at

Rajampet, till he completes the age of 69 years was rejected.

As such, a Writ Petition No.18234 of 2020 came to be filed.

After considering the Rule position and the notification

issued, distinguishing the judgment in W.P.No.16605 of

2016, a bench of this Court, to which one of us was a

member, rejected the request of the petitioner. It is

appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the order, which is

as under:-

"25. We had the benefit of going through the order in W.P.No.15923 of 2014, dated 14.07.2016, retrieved from the official website of High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. The facts in W.P.No.15923 of 2014 present the case of continuing the services of certain outsourcing employees in District Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar. In somewhat similar circumstances considered in W.P.No.16605 of 2016 referred to above, a direction was issued to continue the services of the petitioners therein till they attain age of 69 years, subject to

review of their performance time to time. Thus, the instance covered by W.P.No.15923 of 2014, cannot be equated or similar to the situation, which we have now on hand, relating to a Head Clerk in a Fast Track Court. Therefore, the directions in the order in W.P.No.15923 of 2014, dated 14.07.2016, cannot offer any guidance in this case, since a different fact situation relating to outsourced employees in District Legal Services Authority was considered therein than the case on hand.

26. Thus, it is manifest that the upper age of 65 years was considered at all material times being the limit upto which retired employee from judicial service could serve as Head Clerk of a Fast Court.

27. Therefore, accepting the contentions on behalf of the respondents, rejecting the version of the petitioner, the return endorsement of the 2nd respondent District Judge, Kadapa refusing to accept the request of the petitioner to extend his services by one more year, should be confirmed. The petitioner did not have any vested right for extension of his services as Head Clerk in Fast Track Court, when he has already completed 65 years, enjoying such situation right from the year 2014 continuously for five years. Thus, his request has no basis nor tenable to consider or accept."

5. Similarly, in W.P.No.22024 of 2020, to which one of us

was a Member, this Court was considering a case where a

direction was sought against the respondent to continue the

petitioner as Head Clerk in the office of the VIII Additional

District Judge (Fast Track Court), Chittoor, till he attains the

age of 69 years, in view of the proceedings, dated 23.04.2011.

It was also a case where the petitioner retired as

Superintendent on 31.01.2014. Thereafter, he was appointed

to work on contract basis as Head Clerk in Fast Track Court,

Chittoor. He was allowed to continue till 65 years and on

attaining the age of 65 years, Writ Petition came to be filed

seeking extension of retirement age to 69 years. In the said

judgment, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:-

"18. From the above, it emerges out that upper age limit of 65 years was considered at all material times being the limit up to which retired employee from judicial service could serve as Head Clerk of a Fast Track Court. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioner has no vested right for extension of his services as Head Clerk in Fast Track Court after completing 65 years of age. Hence, we see no merit and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

6. Having regard to the judgments referred to above and

as the case of the petitioner is identical to the one referred to

above, we are not inclined to accept the request of the

petitioner though the petitioner claims that his request was

only to direct the respondent to consider his representation

made for extension of retirement age from 65 years to 69

years.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR