Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Urjana Ravi Babu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 November, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No. 4420 OF 2023
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned Counsel for
the Writ Petitioners; Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Services-I and Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao,
learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2.
2. The Writ Petitioners are employed in Respondent No.2
Corporation. They have approached this Court seeking the
benefit of extension of age of superannuation from 60 to 62
years, which has been provided by the Government to certain
categories of employees, more particularly, the employees
working under the State.
3. In several identical matters, various single Benches of
this Court, have considered and allowed the Writ Petitions of
similar nature, where the Writ Petitioners are employed under
the Corporation. Such Orders passed in the Writ Petitions
extending the benefit of age of superannuation from 60 to 62
years were taken up in Writ Appeals before the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court. The Hon'ble Division Bench, therefore, had
an occasion to consider the Batch of Writ Appeals in
W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and Batch; and, by a Common Order
dated 05.05.2023, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had
categorically held, after considering the settled law, that the
scheme of the Government which is sought to be applied for its
own employees can be extended to the employees of the
Corporation only if the Corporation passes a Resolution to that
effect adopting such scheme and such Resolution is also
affirmed by the State Government. Therefore, it goes without
saying that unless the Management Body of the individual
Corporation passes a Resolution adopting the scheme of the
State Government as regards the age of superannuation and the
same has been affirmed by the State Government, the
employees working in such Corporations would have no vested
right to claim such benefit. With the above ratio, various
Orders passed by the Single Benches of this Court were set
aside. The relevant portion of the Order of the Hon'ble Division
Bench in W.A.1033 of 2023 and Batch dated 05.05.2023 is
usefully extracted hereunder:-
"40. This Court also finds that in the counter affidavit filed
the respondent No.1 had clearly specified that they had
sought a clarification from the Government of Andhra
Pradesh, whether the enhancement of age from 60 to 62
would apply to corporations, associations, societies etc .,
on 14.02.2022. In the counter, it is clearly mentioned that
the writ petition is also premature till the Government
takes a decision on the matter. Even in the past it is stated
that the Government issued separate orders for
corporations and the societies for enhancement of age.
Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner's case will be
considered on similar lines once the decision of the
Government was obtained. The learned Advocate General
submitted that this decision is spelt out by the memo,
dated 23.09.2022, which clearly states G.O.Ms.No.15 is
applicable to the employees, who are described in Section
1(2) of the Act only. It is also clarified by the Government
that certain PSUs, Corporations etc., have enhanced the
age to 62 without necessary approval and sanction and
therefore, remedial action is to be taken by the very
disciplinary action against this respondent.
41. In view of all the above, this Court is of the opinion that
the orders of the learned single judge are not sustainable
and a mandamus cannot be issued in the circumstances
like this as there is no right in the writ petitioner to seek
the relief."
4. The issue in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered
by the Order in W.A.No.1033 of 2023 and Batch dated
05.05.2023 of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
5. Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the
Respondent No.2 has also drawn the attention of this Court and
placed on record a Common Order in W.P.Nos.22719 of 2022
and Batch and W.P.Nos.411 of 2023 and Batch dated
30.08.2023 rendered by a Learned Single Judge of this Court,
following the Division Bench Order dated 05.05.2023,
reiterating the same principle, which is usefully extracted
hereunder:
"Hence, following the judgment of the Hon‟ble Division
Bench of this Court in "The Managing Director vs.
C.Chandrasekhar Reddy, (referred supra)" it is for the
respondents to take a policy decision by passing Board
Resolution, thereafter obtain approval from the State
Government in respect of enhancement of age of
superannuation from 60 to 62 years on par with the
employees of State Government. Till such process is
completed, the employees of the respondents - Corporations
are not entitled for the enhancement of superannuation age
from 60 to 62 years. The petitioners are not entitled for the
relief as claimed. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
No costs."
6. In view of the Order passed by the Learned Single Bench
in the batch of Writ Petitions dated 30.08.2023 (referred supra),
there is no manner of doubt that the Writ Petitioners do not
have any vested right to seek extension of age of
superannuation from 60 to 62 years until and unless the
Management Body of the respective Corporations passes a
Resolution adopting such scheme and that the same has been
approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly,
the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no Order as to
costs.
7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in
terms of this Order.
__________________________________________
(GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J)
Dt: 15.11.2023
JKS
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No. 4420 OF 2023
15.11.2023
JKS
