Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K Swarna Kumari vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December, 2023

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
                       ****
           WRIT PETITION No. 29756 of 2023

Between:

K. Swarna Kumari,
D/o. K. Surya Prakasha Rao, Age: 59
Years, Occ: Area Co-Ordinator/Senior
Assistant,    SERP,     District     Rural
Development         Agency        (DRDA),
Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.

                                                    .....Petitioner
                             AND
  1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
     Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural
     Development Department, Secretariat Buildings,
     Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.
  2. Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP),
     Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer,
     2nd Floor, NTR Administrative Block,
     Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada,
     NTR District.
  3. The Project Director,
     District Rural Development Agency (DRDA),
     Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.
                                                .....Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :              29.12.2023.

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

  1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
     may be allowed to see the Judgments ?          Yes/No
  2. Whether copies of Judgment may be
     marked to Law Reporters/Journals ?             Yes/No
  3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the
     fair copy of the Judgment ?                     Yes/No


                                 ________________________________
                                 G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
                                  2

* HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

           + WRIT PETITION No. 29756 of 2023

                           % 29.12.2023
Between:

# K. Swarna Kumari,
D/o. K. Surya Prakasha Rao, Age: 59
Years, Occ: Area Co-Ordinator/Senior
Assistant,    SERP,     District     Rural
Development         Agency        (DRDA),
Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.
                                                   ....Petitioner
                           Versus
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
     Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
     Panchayat Raj & Rural Development
     Department, Secretariat Buildings,
     Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

 2. Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP),
    Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer,
    2nd Floor, NTR Administrative Block,
    Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada,
    NTR District.

3. The Project Director,
   District Rural Development Agency (DRDA),
   Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.

                                                .....Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner:   Smt. P. Vijaya Kumari

^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Ld.
                               Standing Counsel for Society
                               for   Elimination  of   Rural
                               Poverty.

< Gist :

> Head Note:
? Cases Referred: Nil
                                3

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

           WRIT PETITION No.29756 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Smt. P. Vijaya Kumari, Learned Counsel for

the Writ Petitioner and Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni,

Learned Standing Counsel for SERP (Society for

Elimination of Rural Poverty).

2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as

under:

"It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 while extending the age to the similarly situated persons as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service until she attains the age of superannuation of 62 years on par with the government employees in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

FACTS IN BRIEF:

3. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that she is

presently working as Senior Assistant in the Office of the

Project Director, District Rural Development Agency

(DRDA), Vizianagaram (Respondent No.3); that initially the

Writ Petitioner was selected by the District Selection

Committee as Additional Grama Sevika and that she was

subsequently promoted as Extension Officer/Junior

Assistant vide G.O.Ms.No.384, dated 10.01.2004; that

thereafter, she was promoted as Senior Assistant under

Rule 10(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate

Service Rules; that thereafter, the Writ Petitioner served as

Area Coordinator (equivalent to Senior Assistant Cadre)

and the pay of the Petitioner was fixed under Fundamental

Rule 22(a)(1); that her Pay Scale was revised vide

Proceedings bearing Rc.No.31/2022/C, dated 18.02.2022

in the light of the recommendations of the PRC-2022.

4. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that the Government

of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.135, dated

08.03.1991 called the Model Service Regulations. Para

No.12 of the said Regulation reads as under:

"12. AGE OF SUPERANNUATION:-

The employees of Agency shall retire on attaining the age of Superannuation. The age of Superannuation and the date of retirement from the service of the Agency shall be as per

the provisions applicable to the Government employees of similar categories from time to time."

5. A copy of the Model Service Regulation has also been

placed on record along with the Counter Affidavit. Para

No.21 of the Model Service Regulation reads as under:

"21. APPLICABILITY OF OTHER RULES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT:

Except to the extent specifically provided in these rules, the rules and the instructions of Government issued from to time to the Government Servants contained in the following rules shall apply to the employees of the Agency shown against each in respect of their conditions of service:

1. A.P. State and To all Subordinate Employees Service Rules

2. A.P. Ministerial To all Service Rules employees belonging to categories 10, 11 and 12

3. A.P. Driver To the Service Rules employees belonging to Category

4. A.P. Record To the Asst. Service employees Rules (Spl. belonging Subordinate) to Category

5. A.P. Last grade To the Service Rules employees belonging to Category

6. A.P. Civil Service (conduct) Rules

7. The A.P. (CCA) Rules

8. Government Servants application for posts (A.P) To Service Rules employees belonging

9. Government to all Servants Categories application for private employment (AP.

Service) Rules

6. It is further submitted that the Government of

Andhra Pradesh has brought out G.O.Ms.No.147, dated

30.06.2014 pertaining to the extension of age of

superannuation from 58 to 60 years and that the same was

implemented in favour of the Employees of DRDA in the

year 2018.

7. It is the submission of Learned Counsel for the Writ

Petitioner that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has

brought out G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 through

which the age of superannuation of the Government

Employees was extended from 60 years to 62 years. The

Writ Petitioner, who is likely to complete the age of 60

years by 31.12.2023, is now seeking application of

G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 in her favour and,

consequently extend the age of her superannuation from

60 to 62 years. It is also submitted that some other

Employees approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.19030

of 2023, 8621 of 2023 and 8535 of 2023 and had obtained

Interim Orders to continue in service until they reach the

age of 62 years on par with other Government Employees.

It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioners in

W.P.Nos.19030 of 2023, 8621 of 2023 and 8535 of 2023

are now being continued in service until they attain the age

of 62 years by virtue of the Interim Orders which have been

placed on the file of this case (Ex.P.11). It is further

submitted that the Petitioner herein was served with the

Retirement Notice dated 04.10.2023 indicating that she

shall retire on attaining age of 60 years on 31.12.2023.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2:

8. The Respondent No.2 namely the Society for

Elimination of Rural Poverty has filed Counter Affidavit

dated 10.12.2023. It is stated in the Counter Affidavit that

DRDA (Respondent No.3) is an Agency in each District run

by the Government of India for implementation of the IRDP

(Integrated Rural Development Programme) and DPAP

(Drought Prone Area Programme) and also other

programmes which relate to poverty eradication. It is

stated at Para No.12 of the Counter Affidavit that

Respondent No.2 is the Controlling Authority of all the

DRDAs in the respective Districts and that DRDAs have

been placed under the supervision of Respondent No.2 i.e.,

the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty vide Memo.

No.17296/RD.I/A2/2009, dated 05.09.2009, Department

of Rural Development. It is further stated in the Counter

Affidavit that the Model Service Regulations governing the

service conditions of the Employees of District Rural

Development Agencies is not applicable to the case of the

Writ Petitioner. It is further submitted by Sri Harish

Kumar Rasineni, Learned Standing Counsel for

Respondent No.2 that this case is squarely covered by the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, in a

batch of Writ Appeals bearing W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and

Batch, dated 05.05.2023. He further submits that the

Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court had held that

G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, as regards the

enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 years to 62

years, cannot be made applicable to Employees of the

Society since the Writ Petitioner is employed by

Respondent No.2, which is a Society, and therefore the

ratio laid down by the Division Bench is squarely

applicable in this case also.

RE-JOINDER BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONER:

9. Smt. P. Vijaya Kumari, Learned Counsel for the Writ

Petitioner, refuting the submissions of Sri Harish Kumar

Rasineni, Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent

No.2, has submitted that the Writ Petitioner is an

Employee under the service of the Government of Andhra

Pradesh; that she has been appointed in the year 1986 and

that even as per the averment in the Counter Affidavit that

her services have been regularized in the service of the

Respondent No.3 namely the DRDA vide G.O.Ms.No.70,

Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.II) Department,

dated 16.03.2005 (Ex.P.3) and in pursuance of the said

G.O, the Project Director of DRDA (Respondent No.3)

issued Orders thereby regularizing the services of the

Petitioner vide Proceedings bearing Rc.No.345/2003/J,

dated 13.10.2005 (Ex.P.4). Learned Counsel has taken

this Court through the Regularization Proceedings

(G.O.Ms.No.70, dated 16.03.2005 and Proceedings bearing

Rc.No.345/2003/J, dated 13.10.2005 - Ex.P.3 and P.4

respectively) to submit that the Respondent No.2 is only a

Nodel Agency which has been brought into existence by

virtue of Memo No.17296/RD.I/A2/2009, dated

05.09.2009. She would submit that the Respondent No.2

Society is a subsequent creation which came into existence

only from 05.09.2009 and it has been constituted only to

supervise and coordinate the working of various DRDAs.

She further submits that the submission made by the

Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Model

Service Regulations issued in the year 1991 would not

apply to the case of the Petitioner is completely misleading.

She has taken this Court through the relevant provisions of

the Model Service Regulations which were brought into

existence vide G.O.Ms.No.135, Panchayat Raj & Rural

Development (RD.II) Department, dated 08.03.1991.

DISCUSSION:

10. The fact that the Writ Petitioner was appointed

initially in the year 1986 and that her services have been

regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.70, Panchayat Raj & Rural

Development (RD.II) Department, dated 16.03.2005

(Ex.P.3) and by Proceedings bearing Rc.No.345/2003/J,

dated 13.10.2005 (Ex.P.4) are not in dispute. It is also

seen that both the Proceedings are issued by Respondent

No.3. Admittedly (as per Paragraph No.12 of the Counter

Affidavit), the Respondent No.2 had not come into existence

even by the date of regularization of services of the Writ

Petitioner. On perusal of the Model Service Regulations,

this Court has noticed that Regulation No.1 indicates that

the title of this Model Service Regulations is called "The

Employees Service Regulations" (the Regulations). Para

No.12 of the Regulations deals with the age of

superannuation which categorically states that the age of

superannuation of the Employees of the Agency shall be as

per the provisions applicable to the Government Employees

of similar categories from time to time. Para No.21 of the

said Regulations would indicate that the said Rules (Model

Service Regulations/Employees Service Regulations) and

the instructions of Government issued from time to time to

the Government Servants contained in the following rules

shall apply to the Employees of the Agency shown against

each in respect of their conditions of service (extracted

supra). Insofar as the Writ Petitioner is concerned, the

Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules

would apply.

11. In the above premise, it appears to the Court that the

submission made by the Learned Counsel for the

Respondents that the Writ Petitioner is in the service of

Respondent No.2 is factually incorrect. On perusal of the

Proceedings issued by the Respondent No.1 namely the

Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural

Development (R.D.II) Department vide G.O.Ms.No.70, dated

16.03.2005 (Ex.P.3) and the Annexure attached to the said

G.O, it categorically confirms that the Writ Petitioner was

appointed in the services of Respondent No.3 on

01.02.1986. Her name is found at Sl.No.7 of the Annexure

to evidence the fact that she has been appointed on

01.02.1986 and was regularized by the Proceedings vide

G.O.Ms.No.70, dated 16.03.2005 (Ex.P.3). The subsequent

Proceedings issued by the Respondent No.3 dated

13.10.2005 bearing Rc.No.345/2003/J (Ex.P.4) would also

indicate that the services of the Writ Petitioner were

regularized by the Respondent No.3. It also transpires from

the Record that the Respondent No.2 is a Society which is

subsequently created for having administrative control over

all the DRDAs in the districts of Andhra Pradesh. The

Judgment relied on by the Learned Counsel for the

Respondents in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch dated

05.05.2023 has been perused by this Court. The said

Judgment has dealt with the Employees of Corporations;