T.P.N.V. Prasada Rao vs The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board,
2024 Latest Caselaw 10456 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

T.P.N.V. Prasada Rao vs The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, on 19 November, 2024

Author: R. Raghunandan Rao

Bench: R Raghunandan Rao

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
               I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.25188 of 2018,
                I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.4347 of 2020,
                I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.4374 of 2020,
                I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.4384 of 2020,
                I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.4393 of 2020,
              I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.4419 of 2020 and
                I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.4555 of 2020
                              (Review Petitions)

                            Dated 19.11.2024
COMMON ORDER:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

These seven review petitions are being disposed of by way of this

common order.

2. In all these seven cases, the writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to

as „the employees‟) were working in A.P. Housing Board (hereinafter

referred to as „the Board‟). The age of superannuation of employees of

the Board was 58 years. It may be noted that the age of superannuation

for all government employees, employed directly by the Government of

Andhra Pradesh was also 58 years. The age of superannuation for

government employees was increased from 58 years to 60 years by

amendment to Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of

Superannuation) Act, 2014.

3. The employees herein were superannuated upon attaining the age

of 58 years. The employees being aggrieved by the superannuation, at

the age of 58 years, moved the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal

for a direction to continue them in service till they attain the age of 60

years. The details of the applications, filed before the Andhra Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal, the details of the writ petitions filed thereon and

the review petitions herein are set-out in the table given below:

4. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal allowed these

applications and directed that the employees should be retained till they

attain the age of 60 years. On the basis of these directions, the

employees were reinstated into service.

5. Though the employees were reinstated into service, there was a

gap of several months between the date on which they had

superannuated, on attaining the age of 58 years, and the date on which

they were reinstated into service. The employees subsequently

superannuated upon attaining the age of 60 years.

6. The employees sought payment of salary and other consequential

benefits for the period between the date of superannuation at the age of

58 and their reinstatement. The contention of the employees was that

they have been unfairly restrained from working though they were willing

to work. As such, they would be entitled for salary and consequential

benefits even for the period during which no work was taken from them.

7. The employees moved applications, before the Andhra Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal, for this purpose. The Administrative Tribunal,

after hearing both sides, allowed the applications and directed payment of

salaries and other consequential benefits, even for the period during

which no work was taken from the employees. Aggrieved by these

orders, the Board moved this Court by way of various writ petitions.

These writ petitions came to be dismissed. Subsequently, reviews were

filed in these writ petitions.

8. The employees, filed a separate set of writ petitions again for

implementation of the orders of the Tribunal, which came to be allowed.

The Board filed review petitions in these cases also on the ground that

the pendency of the reviews in the earlier round of writ petitions had not

been brought to the notice of this Court.

9. The employees, also moved various contempt cases against

officials of the Board on the ground that the orders of the Tribunal as well

as this Court have been violated as the employees have not been paid

their dues.

10. The Board moved the review petitions on the following grounds:-

i. The increase in the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years in the case of the employees, was done by treating the Board as an institution falling under Schedule IX of the A.P Re-Organisation Act. Thus, the increase in the age of superannuation, was on account of G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 27.06.2017.

ii. Earlier, the Government had rejected the representations made by employees in various Schedule IX organizations for increase of age of superannuation and had issued G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 18.06.2016, rejecting the said request. This G.O., upon challenge, was upheld by the Erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Special

Leave Petitions were moved against the said judgment. However, these special leave petitions were closed on the ground that subsequent G.O.Ms.No.102 and G.O.Ms.No.138 giving retrospective effect to G.O.Ms.No.102, have been passed and nothing further remains in the petitions.

iii. Paragraph No.9 in the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 09.08.2017 stated as follows:-

"In that view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to retain these appeals in this Court any further. The stand of the Government is very clear. The Government Order dated 08.08.2017 permitting the employees to continue up to the age of 60 years has come into effect with effect from 02.06.2014. Therefore, all employees who have superannuated on account of attainment of age of 58 years on 02.06.2014 or thereafter are entitled to the protection of their service up to 60 years of age and naturally to all consequential benefits arising there from."

iv. When some of the employees in the Schedule IX and Schedule X institutions moved contempt cases on the ground that they were not paid salaries for the period they were out of service, the same were dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, by its Judgment dated

07.03.2019 in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.1045-1055 of 2018 with the following observation:-

"17. Thus, purely on the principle of parity the employees of the institution or entities in Schedule IX and X of 2014 Act could not demand the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. That benefit came to be conferred under policy documents and finally by the G.O. dated

08.08.2017. Thus, the source was in those policy documents and naturally the extent of benefits was also spelt out in those instruments issued by the Government. The Circular dated 28.06.2016 which was more or less adopted in proceedings dated 11.06.2018 must be taken to be the governing criteria in respect of such employees. Unless and until that governing criteria was departed from specifically, mere expression "consequential benefits" would not entitle the concerned employees anything greater than what was contemplated in the policy documents issued by the State Government."

v. In view of these orders, the case of the employees that they are entitled to payment of salary, even during the period, when they were out of service, has to be rejected.

11. Sri D. Ranganath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Board

would contend that the orders of this Court in both rounds of writ petitions

required to be set aside and the writ petitions required to be dismissed as

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had considered the effect of the aforesaid

Government Orders and the requirement to pay salaries for the period for

which no service was taken. He would submit that in view of the

aforesaid observation of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, nothing further

survives in these writ petitions.

12. Sri Subrahmanyam Kurella, learned counsel for the employees

would submit that the case of the employees was never based on the

concessions or extensions given by the government under various

Government Orders or by the resolution of the Board dated 01.08.2017.

13. Learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to Section

16 of the Board Act, which reads as follows:

Section 16. Application of Service Rules and certain other rules:

"Unless otherwise provided in this Act or prescribed there under the provisions of the Service Rules for the time being in force in the State relating to salaries, leave, pensions, traveling allowance, retirements and all conditions of service and the rules for the time being in force relating to the conduct of Government servants and enquiries in to the conduct and punishment of Government servants, shall apply to the Officers and servants of the Board appointed under Section 17."

14. The learned counsel would submit that Section 16 places the

employees of the Board, on par with the Government employees on

various grounds, including retirements. He would submit that Section 16

of the A.P Housing Board Act., r/w. Act 4 of 2014, gave an automatic

increase, in the age of superannuation, from 58 years to 60 years for the

employees. He would further submit that in such circumstances, the

Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the Board are not relevant for

the purposes of this case.

18. Apart from this, the learned counsel would also draw the attention

of this Court to the Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in

W.P.Nos.26495 and 26929 of 2015 filed by the Board.

19. In this Judgment, a Division bench of the erstwhile High Court, after

considering Section 16 of the Housing Board Act., held that the age of

superannuation for employees of Housing Board had increased from 58

to 60 years by virtue of Section 16 r/w. Act 4 of 2014.

20. We have gone through the said judgment and respectfully accept

and agree that the ratio in the said Judgment is correct.

21. Consequently, we must also held that the entire line of arguments

raised by the Board relating to the alleged increase of age of

superannuation on the strength of G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 18.06.2016;

G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 27.06.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.138 dated 08.08.2017

has to be rejected.

22. In these circumstances, there are no grounds made out in the

review applications and they are accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

_____________________________ MAHESWARARAO KUNCHEAM, J

Dt: 19.11.2024 Rns/GVK

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.25188 of 2018, I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.4347 of 2020, I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.4374 of 2020, I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.4384 of 2020, I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.4393 of 2020, I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.4419 of 2020 and I.A.No.2 of 2020 in W.P.No.4555 of 2020

(per Hon‟ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Dt: 19.11.2024

RNS