Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 October, 2024
APHC010268332024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION Nos.13372,
13372, 11491, 14031, 14510, 14752 and 15491 of
2024
WRIT PETITION NO: 13372/2024
Between:
1. MUNNAGI SRINIVAS RAO, S/O. SATYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT
59 YEARS, OCC GENERAL MANAGER (B AND L), ANDHRA
PRADESH STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (APSWC)
VIJAYAWADA, R/O. 10-21-2/7,
2/7, PLOT NO. MIG/A/49, AMARAVATI
PLOTS CHENCHUPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH- 522201
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION AND
MARKETING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE STALIN
CORPORATE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, DD-NO 55-17-3, C--13, AUTO
NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT
3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, FINANCE (HR.IV
(HR.IV-FR
FR AND LR) DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
Page 2 of 20
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KRISTAM SAKTHI NIRANJAN GUPTHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A RAJENDRA BABU
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
3. GP FOR SERVICES II
WRIT PETITION NO: 11491/2024
Between:
1. K RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O.SUNKI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61
YEARS, OCC WAREHOUSE MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH
STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, SAMARLAKOTA,
KAKINADA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION (MARKETING)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,
VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, REPT. BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P NAGENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
Page 3 of 20
1. A RAJENDRA BABU
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
3. GP FOR SERVICES II
WRIT PETITION NO: 14031/2024
Between:
1. SHAIK SALAM MIAH, S/O SHAIK KHASIM MIAH, R/O 51-980-208-D3,
INDIRA GANDHI NAGAR, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE AND
COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR, ANDHRA
PRADESH
3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE AND
COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA
PRADESH
4. THE WAREHOUSE MANAGER, , THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE
WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADES
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A RAJENDRA BABU
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
Page 4 of 20
3. GP FOR SERVICES II
WRIT PETITION NO: 14510/2024
Between:
1. N.VENKATA REDDY, S/O N.KONDA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 60
YEARS, OCC- WORKED AS GUARD-CUM-PEON, AP.STATE
WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, ALLAGADDA, R/O H.NO.7-3- 34,
SAMUEL STREET, NANDYAL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION AND
MARKETING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE AT STALIN
CORPORATE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, D.NO.55-17-3, C-13, AUTO
NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.
3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, FINANCE (HR.IV- FRAND LR) DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
4. THE MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAREHOUSING
CORPORATION (APSWC), ALLAGADDA, NANDYAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PERUMALLA USHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A RAJENDRA BABU
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
3. GP FOR SERVICES II
Page 5 of 20
WRIT PETITION NO: 14752/2024
Between:
1. P SATYANARAYANA, C/O P VEERRRAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O 4-21-20/3A, GOLLALAGUNTA, MANDAPETA, EAST GODAVARI,
ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE AND
COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA
PRADESH
3. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE AND
COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA
PRADESH
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A RAJENDRA BABU
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 15491/2024
Between:
1. VSVN RADHA KRISHNA,, S/O VISSAPRAGADA SATYA.AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, WORKING AS REGIONAL MANAGER
INCHARGE AT REGIONAL OFFICE ANDHRA PRADESH .STATE
WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, R/O, D.NO 25-9-560, IVTH CROSS
Page 6 of 20
ROAD. NEAR BY RAJARAJESWARI TEMPLE. POSTAL COLONY,
A.K.NAGAR POST, VTC, NELLORE, A.P
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION AND
MARKETING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, FINANCE (HR.IV-FR AND LR) DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
3. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, REP.
BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 2ND FLOOR, B-BLOCK, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
STALIN CORPORATE BUILDING, AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA-520
007, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, REP.
BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD
OFFICE AT STALIN CORPORATE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, D.NO.55-
173 C13, AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. TURAGA MK PRANEETHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A RAJENDRA BABU
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
3. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER
Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is the same, all these
writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.
2. Petitioners, employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing
Corporation, filed these writ petitions, impugning the memos issued by the
respective Warehouse Managers/officers intimating the date of
superannuation on completion of 60 years, without extending the benefit of the
age of superannuation up to 62 years, in pursuance of, the resolution passed
by the Board of Directors in 208th Meeting of the Board of Directors held on
14.03.2022 and withdrawal of earlier resolution in 216 th Meeting of the Board
of Directors held on 29.12.2023, as illegal and arbitrary.
3. a) The averments, in brief, are that the Andhra Pradesh State
Warehousing Corporation (for short "the Corporation"), was established in
terms of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 for the purpose of
warehousing of agricultural produce and certain other commodities. Post
bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Corporation was listed as
Government Welfare Organization in Entry No.3 in Schedule-IX of the Andhra
Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 with 50% State Government and 50%
Central Government share. The employees of 2 nd respondent are the persons
appointed to the posts, in connection with the affairs of the State. The
Government of Andhra Pradesh promulgated an ordinance dated 31.01.2022
by amending the provision of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984. By virtue of said
amendment, age of superannuation to Government employees was enhanced
from 60 years to 62 years with effect from 01.01.2022. The Government also
extended the benefit to the Aided Private Educational institutions under
G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 12.06.2023.
b) Petitioners' association appealed to 2nd respondent-Corporation to
extend the said benefit to the employees of the Corporation. The 208th
meeting of the Board of Directors held on 14.03.2022, it was resolved to adopt
G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department dated 31.01.2022.
c) Be that as it may, the 3rd respondent issued Circular
Memo.No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.09.2022 not to give
effect to provisions of the amended Act 2 of 2022, without assigning valid or
substantive reasons. Thereafter, in 216th Meeting of the Board of Directors
held on 29.12.2023, at Item No.13, the Board has resolved to withdraw its
previous resolution adopting G.O.Ms.No.15, held in its 208th Board of
Directors Meeting held on 14.03.2022.
d) Earlier when the Government extended age of superannuation of
employees from 58 to 60, the same was not extended to employees of
different corporations. Writ petitions were filed and Division Bench of
composite high Court disposed of the same by a common order dated 07-3-
2017 G.Rama Mohan Rao and another Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh.
Thereafter G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 27.06.2017 was issued enhancing the age
of superannuation to the employees of different Corporations in Schedule IX
and X of A.P.Reorganisation Act. Later one of G.O., vide G.O.Ms.No.138
Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department dated 08.08.2017 was issued.
e) Despite amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, in the year 2022, the benefit
of enhancement of age of superannuation is not extended to the employees of
the petitioner's Corporation. The petitioners, after receipt of intimation
regarding the date of superannuation, by different memos, made
representations to consider their case in terms of the amended Act 4 of 2022,
however, the same was not considered. Hence, the above writ petitions are
filed.
4. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the Corporation. It was
contended, interalia, that the determination of the age of superannuation is a
policy decision. The Corporation has its service Regulations viz., APSWC
Employees Regulations 1962 made under Sec 42(1) of the Warehousing
Corporation Act, 1962. The age of superannuation, 58 years, was enhanced
to 60 years vide Gazette Notification dated 23-7-2018. Earlier when the age of
superannuation was extended from 58 to 60 years, after the judgement in
G.Rama Mohan Rao's case the Government issued G.O. 112 dated 18-6-
2016; G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 27.06.2017 etc., extending the age of
superannuation. The amendment made to the A.P. Public Employment
Regulation of Age of Superannuation Act, initially by ordinance and later by
amending Act 4 of 2022, does not apply to the employees of the Corporation.
The resolution in 208th Board of Directors meeting adopting G.O.Ms.No.15
dated 31.01.2022 was cancelled by another resolution dated 29.12.2023 in its
216th Borad Meeting. Division Bench of this Court considered the age of
superannuation regarding employees working in public sector undertakings in
W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and Batch and dismissed the claim made
by employees. The service regulations of the Corporation are not amended.
Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Heard Sri Niranjan Guptha, Sri Harsha, learned counsel representing
Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, Sri N.Bharath Simha Reddy, Smt.Perumalla Usha and
Smt.Turaga Mk Praneetha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.Rajendra
Babu, learned standing counsel for 3rd respondent and Sri R.S. Manidhar
Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for 1 st respondent.
6. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners would contend that the
petitioners were appointed to public services and posts in connection with the
affairs of the State and hence the amendment made to the Act 23 of 1984
extending the age of superannuation would apply to the petitioners. That
apart, the Board of Directors in 208th Metting adopted G.O.Ms.No.15 dated
31.01.2022 and hence the petitioners could not have been issued with the
notices intimating the age of superannuation at 60 years. No reasons were
assigned while withdrawing the earlier resolution in the 216th Board of
Directors Meeting. The Circular Memo dated 23.09.2022 issued by the
Government was suspended. The legitimate right of the employees to
continue till 62 years was defeated by canceling/recalling the resolution.
7. Learned standing counsel and Assistant Government pleader, per
contra, would contend that the State Ware Housing Corporation is governed
by The Warehousing Corporations Act 1962. Regulations were framed as per
Section 42(1) of the Act. As per the Service Regulations, the age of
superannuation is 60 years. G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 does not apply
to the employees of the Corporation. Though the Board of Directors passed a
resolution in the 208th Meeting, later the said Resolution was
recalled/canceled in the 216th Meeting of the Board of Directors. The
petitioners have no legitimate right to continue beyond 60 years. The
resolution was not even forwarded to the Government and was withdrawn
later. The Corporation has made a decision not to extend the age of
superannuation to 62 years and it's a policy decision. Eventually, prayed to
dismiss the writ petitions.
8. Learned Counsel relied upon the judgments in G.Rama Mohan Rao
Vs. State of the State of Andhra Pradesh and another1 and the order in
Writ Appeal No.1033 of 2022 and batch dated 05.05.2023.
9. Now, the points for consideration are:
1) Whether the petitioners can continue in service till they
attain the age of superannuation of 62 years as per
G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022?
2) Whether the passing of the Resolution in the 208 th
Meeting of the Board would confer any right on the
employees of the Corporation regarding enhancing the
age of superannuation?
3) Whether recalling/cancelation of resolution in 216 th
Meeting of Board of Directors suffer from any infirmity?
2017(6) ALD 103
4) Whether any right is accrued to the petitioners regarding
enhancement of age by the 208th Board's resolution and,
if so, the legitimate right/expectation of the petitioners is
curtailed/defeated by canceling the resolution in the 216 th
Board Meeting?
10. The Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation is a State public
sector organization established under the Warehousing Corporations Act
1962. The Warehousing Corporation Act was enacted by Parliament, to
provide for the incorporation and regulation of corporations for warehousing
agricultural produce and certain other commodities and for matters connected
therewith.
11. Section 18 of the act speaks of establishing a Warehousing corporation
by the State. Sec 19 of the Act speaks about share capital and shareholders
and Section 20 of the Act speaks about general superintendence and
management of the affairs of a State warehousing corporation and constitution
of the Board of Directors.
12. Section 20(4), relevant is extracted here with:
"The board of directors shall act on business principles having regard to the
public interest and shall be guided by such instructions on questions of
policy as may be given to them by the State Government or the Central
Warehousing Corporation" (emphasis is mine)
13. Section 23 (1 & 2) of the Act prescribes the appointment of officers and
the service conditions. It further prescribes that the person employed is
subjected to conditions of service and shall be entitled to remuneration as
determined by regulations made by the Corporation under the Act.
14. Section 42 of the Act empowers the Corporation to frame regulations.
Section 42(2)(a) speaks about conditions of service and remuneration payable
to the officers and other employees of the Warehousing Corporation.
15. In the exercise of powers conferred under Section 42(1) of the Act with
the previous sanction of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra
Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation made the Andhra Pradesh State
Housing Corporation Regulations 1965 and the Andhra Pradesh State
Warehousing Corporation Employees Regulations. Regulation 15 speaks
about the age of retirement.
16. Thus, as per Regulation 15, the age of retirement of every employee,
initially 58 years, was amended vide Gazette notification dated 23.07.2018 to
60 years. The 3rd respondent Corporation is shown at Entry-3 of Schedule-IX
of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014.
17. Earlier, the employees of the Corporation filed writ petitions along with
employees of other Corporations seeking enhancement of the age of
superannuation from 58 to 60 years. The Division Bench of the composite
High Court in G.Rama Mohan Rao's case (supra), considered various
aspects including age of superannuation to the employees of the Corporation
in Schedules IX and X of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014. The Division
Bench also considered whether the petitioners' services (employees of
different Corporations) come under Section 1 (2) of the Act 23 of 1984. The
Division Bench in G.Rama Mohan Rao's case made the following
observations:
"37. ... It is only if the 1984 and the 2014 State Act are held applicable to
employees of public sector undertakings, can it be held that they are entitled
to continue in service till they reach the age of superannuation of 60 years.
As employees of public sector undertakings are not persons appointed to
public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, they are
not governed by the provisions of the 1984 Act as amended by the 2014
State Act. While it is open to the Board of Directors/Managing Committees of
each of these Corporations/Companies/Societies, in accordance with the
provisions of the enactment by which they are governed and the Articles of
Association/bye-laws which are applicable to them, to adopt the provisions of
the 1984 Act and the 2014 State Act, and make them applicable to their
employees by amending their rules and regulations, it is only thereafter can
employees of these undertakings claim the right to continue in service upto
the enhanced age of superannuation of 60 years.
42. As employees of Public Sector Undertakings and Government
servants constitute two different and distinct classes, neither do the
conditions of service prescribed for government servants automatically apply
to employees of Public Sector Undertakings, nor does the plea of
discrimination, or of violation of Article 14, merit acceptance. The contention
that the Government cannot apply different yardsticks is therefore not
tenable. While several of these corporate bodies appear to have adopted the
1984 Act, they are required to also adopt the 2014 State Act, and amend the
rules and bye-laws, governing the age of superannuation of its employees,
accordingly. It is only if the rules, governing the age of superannuation, are
amended as prescribed under the applicable bye-laws/Articles of association
would the employees of these corporate bodies then be entitled to claim the
benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation.
44. The Companies/Corporations/Societies, listed in the IX Schedule to
the 2014 Central Act, are distinct legal entities and are neither departments,
nor form part, of the State Government. Page 9 of 25 SRSJ WP No.22682 of
2023 & batch The Board of Directors/Managing Committees of each of these
legal entities govern each of these entities subject only to the provisions of
the Companies Act, the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of
Association in so far as Companies/Corporations are concerned, and the
bye-laws and the provisions of the Act whereunder the Societies were
constituted in so far as Societies are concerned. The control exercised by the
State Government, over such Companies/Societies, is as its shareholder, and
in terms of the relevant enactments and the Articles of Association of each of
these Companies, and the bye-laws of each of these Societies. Neither the
1984 Act, nor the Rules made by the Government for its employees under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, automatically apply to these
Corporations/Companies/Societies.
xxx
xxx
192. The earlier G.Os were issued by the Government of A.P. without
these legal entities amending its rules/regulations/byelaws, governing the age
of superannuation and without the prior approval of the sole/majority
shareholder i.e., the State Government as required under the Articles of
Association/byelaws of these legal entities. As the Rules and Regulations, by
which the petitioners are governed, stipulate 58 years as the age of
retirement, these employees cannot claim any right to continue in service till
they attain the age of 60 years. It is only if the request of these
Companies/Corporations/Societies, for amendment of its byelaws/rules and
regulations, are approved by the State Government, and the
rules/byelaws/regulations are amended thereafter in accordance with law,
would their employees then be governed by the enhanced age of
superannuation prescribed under the Rules/bye-laws.
18. Thus, the Division Bench held that the State Government should
consider the request of the Corporations/Companies / Societies separately
based on their financial position and the genuineness of their need to enhance
the age of superannuation and to make a decision.
19. Against the judgment of the Division Bench, the matter was carried to
the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.Veerraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2 .
Pending the appeal, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.112 Finance (HR.IV-
FR) Department dated 18.06.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.102 Finance (HR.IV-FR)
Department dated 27.06.2017, enhancing the age of superannuation of
employees working in institutions included in Schedules IX and X of the A.P.
Reorganisation Act, 2014 subject to certain conditions. The relevant portion of
G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 27.06.2017 is extracted herebelow:
"4. Government after careful examination of the matter hereby accord to
give in principle approval to enhance the age of superannuation of employees
(2019) 17 SCC 364
working in the institutions listed in IX and X Schedule Institutions subject to
the following conditions:
1. The specific decision to enhance the superannuation age from 58 to
60 years to their employees shall be taken by the Board of
Directors/Managing Committees of these legal entities.
2. While doing so, these Institutions shall take into consideration their
financial position and genuineness of their need to enhance the age of
superannuation.
3. In case of Residential Education Societies, the decision should be
based on the genuineness of their need and assessment of
performance of these societies."
20. Later, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.138 Finance (HR.IV-FR)
Department dated 08.08.2017 making applicable G.O.Ms.No.102 dated
27.06.2017 with effect from 26.02.2014.
21. In pursuance of the aforementioned G.Os., the 3rd respondent
Corporation amended Regulation 15 of Chapter-II of the Andhra Pradesh
State Warehousing Corporation Regulations, 1965 by substituting Clause (i)
"every employee shall retire on completion of 60 years".
22. It is pertinent to mention here that the Board of Andhra Pradesh State
Warehousing Corporation passed a resolution in its 192nd Meeting on
25.09.2017 to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 to
60 years with prospective effect from the date of amendment to Regulation 15.
The proposals were submitted for approval to the Government. The
government approved the same vide G.O.Ms.No.570 Agriculture and
Cooperation (MKTG.1) department dated 18.07.2018. In pursuance of said
G.O. Regulation 15 of the Regulation was amended as stated supra, by
substituting Clause 15(1).
23. Be that as it may, the 1st respondent amended the Andhra Pradesh
Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 by Act 4
of 2022 extending the age of superannuation in respect of Government
employees from 60 to 62 years. Thereafter G.O.Ms.No15 Finance (HR. IV-
FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 was issued. The 1 st respondent
issued clarification vide Circular Memo No.1813129/FIN0l-HR/212/2022-HR-
IV, dated 23.09.2022, clarifying that the amendment made to the Andhra
Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984,
would apply to the following categories of employees:
i) persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the
affairs of the state;
ii) officers and other employees working in any local authority, whose
salaries and allowances are paid out of the consolidated fund of the
State;
iii) persons appointed to the Secretariat Staff of the Houses of the State
Legislature and
iv) every other officer or employee whose conditions of service are
regulated by the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India before the commencement of this Act, other than
the Village Officers and Law Officers;
whether appointed before or after the commencement of this Act.
24. Indeed, a perusal of the memo, it discerns, that the Memo is only
clarificatory one. As seen from Paragraphs 6 & 7 of the above memo, it would
indicate that in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022, certain
Government PSUs / Corporations / Institutions / Companies / Societies
including Educational Institutions / Non-teaching staff of the Universities have
issued orders extending the age of superannuation from (60) to (62) years,
without having the necessary competency. (Emphasis Mine). Therefore,
the said circular memo was issued. Thus, the memo which is clarificatory
does not bind the Corporation. The Corporation has to decide subject to
approval from the Government.
25. No doubt, the Board of Directors of in 208th Meeting held on 14.03.2022
agreed to adopt G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 and further requested the
Vice Chairman / Managing Director to take further action. Even before a
decision by the Government, the Board in its 216 th Meeting held on
29.12.2023 has withdrawn the earlier resolution to adopt the G.O.Ms.No.15
dated 31.01.2022.
26. It is not out of place to mention here that the employees of the 3 rd
respondent when the age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 to 60
years, filed writ petitions as discussed supra. The Division Bench of the
composite High Court disposed of said writ petitions on 07.03.2017 along with
other writ petitions. The findings recorded therein bind this Court.
27. The discussion made supra, would manifest that as per Regulation 15
as of today, the age of superannuation of the employees of the 3 rd respondent-
Corporation is 60 years. Mere passing of a resolution by itself neither confers
a right in favour of employees nor the same binds the Corporation. The
passing of a resolution by the Board is only the first step in the process.
28. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
benefit under G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 will not apply to the petitioners,
and hence the petitioners cannot claim a right to continue till they attain 62
years in service. Thus, the points answered against the petitioners.
29. At the hearing learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that by
canceling the resolution and by not extending the age of superannuation to 62
years, the 3rd respondent Corporation desecrated the legitimate expectation of
the petitioners.
30. The phrase "legitimate expectation" was first introduced by Lord
Denning in Schmidt Vs. Secretary of State for Home Affairs 3. American
[1969] 2 Ch 149
students had residence permits to study at a recognized college in the UK.
When the Home Secretary withdrew the college's recognition, their permits
were not renewed. They argued they were denied a fair hearing, but the court
dismissed their claim as the permits had already expired. Lord Denning,
however, stated that had the permits been revoked before expiry, the students
would have had a "legitimate expectation" of being allowed to stay, giving
them the right to be heard. This case marked the first recognition of procedural
protection based on legitimate expectation.
31. In Ram Pravesh Singh Vs. State of Bihar4, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held thus follows:
"What is legitimate expectation? Obviously, it is not a legal right. It is an
expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy, that may ordinarily flow from a
promise or established practice. The term "established practice" refers to a
regular, consistent, predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the
decision-making authority. The expectation should be legitimate, that is,
reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or
casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be
a legitimate expectation. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as such. It
is a concept fashioned by the courts, for judicial review of administrative
action. It is procedural in character based on the requirement of a higher
degree of fairness in administrative action, as a consequence of the promise
made, or practice established. In short, a person can be said to have a
"legitimate expectation" of a particular treatment, if any representation
or promise is made by an authority, either expressly or impliedly, or if
the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such
expectation in the normal course. As a ground for relief, the efficacy of the
doctrine is rather weak as its slot is just above "fairness in action" but far
below "promissory estoppel". It may only entitle an expectant: (a) to an
opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed; or (b) to an
explanation as to the cause for denial. In appropriate cases, the courts may
grant a direction requiring the authority to follow the promised procedure or
established practice. A legitimate expectation, even when made out, does not
(2006) 8 SCC 381
always entitle the expectant to a relief. Public interest, change in policy,
conduct of the expectant or any other valid or bona fide reason given by the
decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the "legitimate expectation".
The doctrine of legitimate expectation based on established practice (as
contrasted from legitimate expectation based on a promise), can be invoked
only by someone who has dealings or transactions or negotiations with an
authority, on which such established practice has a bearing, or by someone
who has a recognised legal relationship with the authority. A total stranger
unconnected with the authority or a person who had no previous dealings
with the authority and who has not entered into any transaction or
negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate
expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation
to act fairly."
32. In Jitender Kumar Vs. State of Haryana5, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
thus:
"A legitimate expectation is not the same thing as an anticipation. It is distinct
and different from desire and hope. It is based on a right. [See Chanchal
Goyal (Dr.) v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 3 SCC 485 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 322]
and Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corpn. [(1993) 3 SCC 499] It is
grounded in the rule of law as requiring regularity, predictability and certainty
in the Government's dealings with the public. We have no doubt that the
doctrine of legitimate expectation operates both in procedural and substantive
matters."
33. The law enunciated by the Apex Court makes the thing more than
discernable that one cannot claim a right in anticipation and it is based on
established practice. Despite making out one is not entitled to a relief.
34. In the case at hand, no promise was made by the 3 rd respondent, to
enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years to its employees. In
the absence of any such promise or established practice, the petitioners
cannot contend any desecration of legitimate expectation.
(2008) 2 SCC 161
35. Given the discussion supra, this Court does not find any merit in the
above writ petitions and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
36. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are Dismissed. No costs.
However, this order will not preclude the 3rd respondent if it intends to
pass any resolution enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years
as per the Rules in vogue.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
PVD
