Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S Markandeya vs The State Of Ap on 30 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.1956 of 2023
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.No DATE OFFICE
ORDER
NOTE
01 30.01.2023 NV, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Government Pleader for the
respondents.
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to
declare the action of the respondents herein in
proposing to retire the petitioner from services
w.e.f. 31.01.2023 on attaining the age of 60 years
as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.15
dated 31.01.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is a permanent employee
working in the 3rd respondent temple, which is
not included in the major temples notified under
Rule 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and
Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments
Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules,
2000. He further submits that in view of
G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 under which the
1st respondent enhanced the age of
superannuation of the Government employees
shall be applicable to the petitioners who are
working as permanent employees of the
respondent temple out of the sanctioned cadre
strength and the petitioner is eligible for
continuation of service on par with the
Government employees as was done in earlier
occasion, when the age of superannuation was
enhanced from 58 to 60. He further submits that
even in respect of other temples, this Court
considered the case of the petitioners in respect
of superannuation pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.15
dated 31.01.2022 by taking analogy which was
adopted by this Court in earlier occasion and
enhanced the services of the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for
enhancement of age of superannuation.
On the other hand, learned Government
Pleader submits that in view of the clear
demarcation between the major temples and
other than major temples and which are not
headed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as
Joint Commissioner, the enhancement of
superannuation by the Government in respect of
the Government employees cannot be applicable.
She further submits that Rule 9 of the Andhra
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and
Servants Punishment Rules, 2000 speaks that the
employees other than major temples are not
entitled for enhancement of age of
superannuation on par with the Government
employees. She further relied upon the judgment
rendered by this Court in G.Eswara Reddy and
others v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(W.P.No.16190 of 2015 and batch dated
19.01.2016), wherein this Court held as follows:
"This Court is of the considered view
that after repeal of F.R.56 and its
replacement by the Age of Superannuation
Act, 1984, the retirement age of the 8
special institutions was governed by the
Age of Superannuation, Act,1984. But after
the advent of the Superannuation Act, 2014
the age of retirement is governed by the
said Act which does not extend the benefit
to the petitioners. After the passing of the
Superannuation Act, 2014, the age of
superannuation of the petitioners shall be
in accordance with Rule 9 of Andhra
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions Office Holders and Servants
Service Rules, 2000 made under
G.O.Ms.No.888 dated 08.12.2000."
In view of the same, the petitioner is not
entitled for enhancement of age of
superannuation.
Having regard to the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Government Pleader, it is an admitted
fact that the petitioner had been continued in his
services up to the age of 60 years due to
enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 to
60 years. Moreover, the department of Finance
issued G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 enhancing
the age of superannuation of Government
Employees from 60 to 62 years. In view of the
same, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter
dated 25.02.2022 to the 1st respondent seeking
clarification for amending rule 9 of the said rules
in respect of permanent employees other than
the major temples. The clarification and decision
is pending with the 1st respondent. In view of the
letter dated 25.02.2022 by the 2nd respondent,
the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of age
of superannuation up to 62 years. Moreover, the
subject enhancement of age of superannuation
from 60 to 62 years is also applicable to major
temples and depriving the same to the employees
of other temples like petitioners is nothing but
violation of right to equality as envisaged under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Prima-
facie, this Court finds the present classification
between the employees of major temples and
other than major temples is nothing but
discrimination and in violation of principles of
equality.
Therefore, there shall be an interim
direction to the respondents to continue the
services of the petitioner up to the age of
superannuation i.e., extended from 60 to 62
years.
List the matter after three (03) weeks for
filing counter.
Office is directed to print the name of
learned Government Pleader for Endowments in
the place of learned Government Pleader for
Services-II for the respondents in the cause list.
_________
NV, J
BSP
