E Muralinath vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4604 AP

                HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.24922 of 2023

                                   PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.No    DATE                                                                     OFFICE
                                              ORDER

NOTE 29.09.2023 NV, J `

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent/university.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner is working as Associate Professor

in the 3rd respondent/University. While so, the 1st

respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 29.07.2023

enhancing the age of superannuation in respect of

teaching faculty from 62 years to 65 years. She

further submits that the said G.O. is applicable to

all the Universities which are situated within the

State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the petitioner

is entitled for enhancement of age of

superannuation from 62 years to 65 years. She

further submits that in earlier occasion, the

Department of Higher Education issued

G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 24.12.2014, wherein the age

of superannuation was enhanced from 60 years to 62 years in respect of teaching staff of the

Universities. The said G.O. was adopted by the 3rd

respondent University vide memo dated 30.12.2014

without there being any prior permission from the

Government, implemented G.O.Ms.No.59, dated

24.12.2014 and extended the age of superannuation

in respect of all the teaching faculty of the

professor of the said University.

Further, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that as like G.O.Ms.No.59, dated

24.12.2014 issued by the 1st respondent was made

applicable to all the Universities including the 3 rd

respondent herein, similarly G.O.Ms.No.39, dated

29.07.2023 issued by the 1st respondent enhancing

the age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years

in respect of teaching staff of all the Universities

situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh accordingly,

the same is also applicable to the petitioner herein.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for

enhancement of age of superannuation from 60

years to 65 years.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel

for the respondents submitted written instructions,

wherein it is stated as under:

     "The      University          is   under    the
      Administrative Control AH DD & F
     Department.

In this context, the stand of SVVU, Tirupati on enhancement of age of superannuation of regular teachers from 62-65 years is, "there is no approval/permission from the Government of A.P. and so no action can be taken in this regard"."

Learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents submits that since there is no prior

approval from the 1st respondent, the enhancement

of age of superannuation is not automatic and such

a benefit cannot be granted to the petitioner till

the approval of the 1st respondent herein. He also

relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division

Bench of this Court, wherein the ratio laid down is

that without prior approval of the Government,

enhancement of superannuation cannot be

affected. Therefore, he requested time for filing

counter.

Considering the submissions made by both

the learned counsel and on perusal of the material

placed before this Court, this Court is of the prima-

facie opinion that the petitioner is entitled for

enhancement of age of superannuation from 62

years to 65 years. Accordingly, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents to continue the

petitioner in service for a period of six(6) weeks.

Learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents is specifically directed to inform the

order of this Court to the respondents.

For filing counter, list the matter after

four(4) weeks.

________ NV, J Note:

C.C. by 03.10.2023 B/o.

TPS