Jillella Syam Sundara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6043 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Jillella Syam Sundara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 December, 2023

              HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
                          MAIN CASE: W.P.No.31815 of 2023
                                  PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.                                                                             Office
            DATE                               ORDER
No                                                                              Note
01.       13.12.2023 TRR, J

                              G.O.Ms.No.15      dated   31.01.2022,       was
                       issued by the Government of A.P. enhancing the
                       age of superannuation of Government Employees
                       from 60 years to 62 years, by amending the Act
                       i.e., A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age
                       of Superannuation) Act 1984. Now, the present
                       writ petition is filed to apply the referred G.O.
                       and to continue the petitioner till attaining the
                       age of 62 years.
                              It is very well settled principle "deprecate
                       the practice of granting interim order which
                       practically gives the principal relief".    Hon'ble
                       Apex court in      Assistant Collector of Central
                       Excise, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd &
                       Ors.1, held thus in the following:
                             Although the powers of the High Courts
                             under Art. 226 of the Constitution are
                             far and wide and the Judges must ever
                             be vigilant to protect the citizen against
                             arbitrary executive action, nonetheless,
                             the Judges have a constructive role and
                             therefore there is always the need to
                             use such extensive powers with due
                             circumspection.      We     repeat    and
                             deprecate the practice of granting
                             interim order which practically give the
                             principal relief sought in the petition
                             for no better reason than that a prima

      1
          1985 (1) SCC 260 = AIR 1985 SC 330
                            2



      facie case has been made out, without
      being concerned about the balance of
      convenience, the public interest and a
      host of other relevant considerations.

        As seen from the quoted judgment when a
justifiable reason is presented, the courts can
grant interim relief. Granting interim relief at the
threshold creates a lot of difficulties and unless
there is any special reason clearly indicates that
the question of the convenience was in the mind
which     has     been     taken      into   consideration.
Therefore, the proposition was not absolute bar
for granting interlocutory order which almost
grants the relief claimed in the writ petition. It is
by now an established principle that an overall
view and totality of the situations are to be
looked    into.    The         petitioners   may   not   be
compensated for not performing any government
duty under the 'no work, no pay' principle, at the
final disposal of the writ petition, if the Court
held that petitioners are entitled to the relief
prayed in the writ petition.
         Hence, there shall an interim direction to
the respondents to continue the writ petitioners

till the disposal of the writ petition.

Post the matter after Sankranthi Vacation, 2024.

_______ TRR,J Note:

Issue C.C. by 13.12.2023 B/o KBN