Vice Chairman Managing Director vs K N P Saradhi
2023 Latest Caselaw 4384 AP

                                        1



           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                                      AND
      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA


                            W.A.No.602 of 2023


JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu)


      This writ appeal is filed questioning the interim order dated

31.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.33830 of 2022.

2.    This Court has heard Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel

for the appellant and Sri Motupalli Vijaykumar as instructed by

Sri M.Venkateswara Rao and learned Government Pleader for

Services for the respondents.

3. The order in this case also relates to the enhancement of the

age of superannuation. The petitioners filed a writ petition

claiming that they are entitled to the enhanced age of retirement

of 62 years while questioning that the action of the respondents in

attempting to retire the petitioners from service of 62 years is

incorrect. The interim order was granted directing the

respondents to continue the writ petitioners in service till they

attain the age of 62 years.

4. Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for the appellant

argues that it is a fact that initially the Board of the appellant

organization decided to enhance the age to 62 years and a

resolution was also passed enhancing the age of employees to 62

years from 60 years. But, later, basing upon the Government

instructions including the finance departments memo dated

23.09.2022, the respondents had a relook in the entire issue. He

points out that in July, 2023 a fresh resolution was passed again

limiting the age of superannuation to 60 years only by

superseding the earlier resolution enhancing the age to 62 years.

Apart from this, he also submits that basing upon the judgment in

the case of G.Rama Mohan Rao and another v. Government of

Andhra Pradesh1, this Court in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch

held that only if the request of the Corporations for amendment of

bye laws are approved by the State Government and the rules and

bye laws are amended pursuant thereto, the enhanced age would

be applicable. He points out that this finding in the case of

G.Rama Mohan Rao (1 supra) was approved in the subsequent

writ appeals which were also by a co-ordinate Bench and

therefore, he submits that learned single Judge committed an

error. He therefore prays that the appeal should be allowed.

1 2017 SCC Online Hyd 54

5. In response to this, learned senior counsel for the

respondents Sri M.Vijay Kumar argues the matter and points out

that the appellant is an independent Corporation and it has its

own Board of Directors. The Board of Directors have passed a

resolution in April, 2022 enhancing the age to 62 years. This was

again revisited by the very same Board of Directors who have

passed a further resolution in July, 2023, which was

communication to all the employees also. He submits that there

is no need or necessary for the appellant to seek the approval of

the Government as it is an independent Corporation. It is his

contention that the interpretation of the Government either in the

circular memo dated 22.09.2022 or otherwise is irrelevant, once

the Board of Directors have independently exercised their mind to

the enhanced age. It is his contention that the rules and

regulations governing the APIIC permit the said enhancement. He

also points out that the subsequent events including the

subsequent resolution cannot be used to judge the correctness of

the learned single Judge's order. He points out that the single

Judges order is dated 31.10.2022 and the subsequent resolution

bringing the age down to 60 years is in July, 2023. Therefore, he

contends that this factor cannot be taken into account for denying

the relief to the writ petitioners.

6. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices

that this is one among the long line of cases which have come

before this Court with the enhancement of age of retirement by the

Government.

7. In the case on hand, it is a fact that the Board of Directors of

the appellant enhanced the age of superannuation of its

employees from 60 to 62 years. This is later sought to be

withdrawn by a resolution of July, 2023.

8. The fact also remains that in the case of G.Rama Mohan

Rao (1 supra), the Division Bench clearly held that the request of

the Corporations for amendment should be approved by the State

Government and thereafter, the regulations must be amended in

accordance with law. Only after these two conditions are fulfilled,

the enhanced age of superannuation would become applicable.

This was approved in the subsequent Division Bench judgment in

W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch. It was held that the institution

should taken into consideration their financial status and other

factors before enhancing the age of retirement. The procedure

stipulated in the G.O. was also directed to be followed.

9. A reading of the impugned order and or the writ affidavit

does not indicate clearly if this procedure was followed or not. The

applicability of the said findings to the case on hand; the status of

the appellant Corporation etc., must be looked into in detail.

10. Considering all of the above, this Court is of the opinion that

there is merit in the writ appeal filed. However, in view of the

facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion

that one more opportunity should be given to the appellants to

argue the case before the learned single Judge. Whether the

subsequent event namely the resolution of July, 2023 reducing

the age to 62 years can be taken into consideration is an issue. In

addition, this Court finds that the single Judge should also look

into the G.O's referred to in the course of the judgment in

W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch and decide the matter afresh.

This Court also finds that the reference to the order in

SLP.No.14033 and 14034 of 2024 is not fully correct in the facts

and circumstances of this case.

11. The writ appeal is therefore allowed setting aside the

impugned order and the matter is remanded back to the learned

single Judge with a request to consider the issue threadbare and

thereafter decide the matter on its own merits in accordance with

law. This entire exercise should be completed within a period of

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No

order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any

shall stand dismissed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

__________________________________ DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J

Date: 20.09.2023 Note: Issue C.C. in one week

KLP