The single judge common order dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the retirement of power corporation employees at age 60. The court held that public sector undertakings are distinct legal entities not automatically covered by the Or.
Writ petitions dismissed; interim orders vacated; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
4 / ■ .. 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
A -ov
la S
*
WRIT PETITION Nos: 5840, 8169, 8181, 8360, 8401, 8403, 8404, 8405, 8416, 8431, 8434, 8485.8612, 8808, 8816, 8958, 9619, 9625, 9631, 9982,10110, 10136 and 10418 of 2023
WRIT PETITION NO: 5840 OF 2023
Between:
Gedela Suryanarayana, S/o. Gangaiah, Age. 61 years, Occ. Rtd. Assistant Engineer (O), APEPDCL, Garugubilli Section, Parvatipuram Operation Sub-Division, Garugubilli Mandal, Vizianagarm District, Andhra Pradesh-532501.
...Petitioner
AND
4. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.
5. The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i. declaring the action of the 1** respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also from 62 years to 65 years to the employees of 5th respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also ii. the action of the 5‘^ respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also from 62 to 65 years to the employees of the 5*” respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1)
1
>
and (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and further iii. the action of the 5" respondent in saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f., 31-07-2022 instead of choosing to continue in service till he completes 62 and 65 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) and G.O.Ms. No.15 Finance (HR.IV-FRandLR) Department, dt.28-01-2023 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of the Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and iv. consequently, direct the 5th respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years at first instance .and from 62 years to 65 years finally and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancemerit of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also from 62 years to 65 years to the employees of 5*'’ respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to. 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5*’’ respondent or not and also set aside the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f.,31-07-2022 enabling him to reinduct into service to continue in service till he completes 62 years and also 5 years.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 5‘" respondent to allow the petitioner to continue in service till completion of 62 years of age without reference to the fact that he got already retired from service^ on 31-07-2022 in the light of the catena of orders passed by this Hdn'ble Court in recent past.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Between:
1. The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Vizianagaram Operation Circle, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
1. Gedela Suryanarayana, S/o. Gangaia'h, Age. 61 years, Occ. Rtd. Assistant Engineer (O), APEPDCL, Garugubilli Section, Parvatipuram Operation Sub Division, Garugubilli Mandal, Vizianagarm District, Andhra Pradesh-532501.
-3-
3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
4. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
5. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.
...Respondents/Respondents
... Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 09.03.2023 in WP.No.5840 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,
SCforAPEPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 8169 OF 2023
Between:
T Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Jaggayya, Age. 60 years, Occ. Superintending Engineer (Civil), Corporate Office, AP EPDCL, P and T Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530013.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i.declaring the action of the 15t respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5*’’ respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also ii.the action of the 5**' respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5*’’ respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58, years to 60 years, and further iii.the action of the 5th respondent in saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f.,31-03-2023 vide E.O.O.(HRD) Rt. No.145/2022. dt.25-04-2022 Instead of choosing him to continue in service till he completes 62 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of the Arts.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and iv.consequently, direct the 5*’’ respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5'*’ respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5 respondent or not and also set aside the retirement notice given by the respondent vide E.O.O.(HRD) Rt. No.145/2022, dt.25-04-2022.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of E.O.O.(HRD) Rt. No.145/2022, dt.25-04-2022 issued by the 5th respondent in order to allow the petitioner to continue in service without relieving him from service till he completes the age of sixty-two (62) years just like that was done when the date of superannuation got enhanced from 58 years to 60 years in 5‘^ respondent's organisation in the light of the interim order dt.09-032023 passed in lA No.1 of 2023 in WP No.5840 of 2023.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Between:
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
3
...Respondent/Petitioner
...Respondents/Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to . vacate the interim order dated 03.04.2023 in WP. No.8169 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SC for APEPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 8360 OF 2023
Between:
Gogula Appala Naidu, S/o. Rami Naidu, aged 60 years, Occ. Senior Assistant, ERO, Palakonda, APEPDCL, R/o. D.No. 2-49, Main Street, Venkatapuram, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District
...Petitioner
AND
— (o
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one In the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declare 2*^ Respondent's Circular No.1813129/FIN01HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23-09-2022 to the extent of Paragraph No.6 and 7th Respondent's Memo No. SE (0) SKL/EE-T/PO/JAO/Adm/AI/D.No. 151/22, dt. 2701-2022 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the 2"'^ Respondent's Circular No.1813129 / FIN01- HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23-09-2022 to the extent of Paragraph , No.6 and 7“’ Respondent's Memo No.SE(O) SKL/EET/PO/JAO/Adm/AI/D.No. 151/22, dt. 27-01-2022.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that In the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service till the age of superannuation of 62 years without any break and with all consequential attendant benefits including regular pay and allowances pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the 2nd Respondent's Circular No. 1813129/FIN01HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23-09-2022 to the extent of Paragraph No. 6 and 7th Respondent’s Memo No. SE (0) SKL/EE-T/PO/JAO/Adm/AI/D.No. 151/22, dt. 2701-2022.
lA NO: 3 OF 2023
Between:
4. The Executive Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Palakonda Division, Palakonda, Srikakulam District.
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
1. Gogula Appala Naidu, S/o. Rami Naidu, aged 60 years, Occ. Senior Assistant, ERO, Palakonda, APEPDCL, R/o. D.No. 2-49, Main Street, Venkatapuram, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.
...RespondentZPetitioner
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thullur Mandal, Amaravathi, Guntur District, .
3. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thullur Mandat Amaravathi, Guntur District.
4. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thullur Mandal, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
5. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. (AP Transco), Vidyut Souda, Eluru Road, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520004.
...Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 04.04.2023 in WP. No. 8360 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMBABU KOPPINEEDi
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - II
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 8: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SC for APEPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 8401 OF 2023
Between:
Veerla Ravi, S/o. Prasad, Age. 59 years, Occ. Chief General Manager (OandM), Corporate Office, Raj Bhavan Road, Opp. PWD Grounds, O/o. the Chief General Manager (O and M), Vijayawada, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh-520002.
...Petitioner
AND
-8
8. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110 004
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i. declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the ehiployees of 5‘^ respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years and also ii. the action .of the 5*^ respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5”* respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years and further iii. the action of the 5‘" respondent in saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f., 30-06-2023 vide C.O.O.Rt. No.446 (GM-HR Section), dt.30-09-2022 instead of choosing him to continue in service till he completes 62 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation besides violative of the Arts.14, 16 and 21 bf the Constitution of India'and iv. consequently, direct the 5**’ respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5*’’ respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5th respondent or not and also set aside the retirement notice given by the 5‘*’ respondent vide C.O.O.Rt. No.446 (GM-HR Section), dt.30-09-2022.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed In support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of C.O.O.Rt.No.446 (GM-HR Section), dt.30-09-2022 issued by the 5® respondent in order to allow the petitioner to continue in service without relieving him from service till he completes the age of sixty-two (62) years just like that was done when the date of superannuation got enhanced from 58 years to 60 years In 5® respondent's organisation in the light of the interim order dt.09-03- 2023 passed in lA No. 1 of 2023 in WP No.5840 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - II
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI,
SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI V.R.REDDY KOVVURI,
SCforAPCPDCL
Counsel for the Respondents 7 & 8: SRI N.HARINATH, DSG
WRIT PETITION NO: 8403 OF 2023
Between: N Gangadhar, S/o. Palla Rao, Age. 61 years, Occ. Rtd. Chief General Manager (RA, PP and QC), R/o.50-1-52/1, Sri Nilayam, Near Kshatriya Kalyana Mandapam, Seethamma Dhara, Alluri Sitarama Raju Nagar, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh-530013.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i.declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5*’’ respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also ii.the action of the 5*’’ respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5“^ respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and further iii.the action of the Sth respondent in saying to retire the petitioner from service w;e.f.,31-01-2022 instead of choosing to continue in service till he completes 62 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra. Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of the Arts.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and iv. consequently, direct the Sth respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of Sth respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5‘^ respondent or not and also set aside the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f.,31-01-2022 enabling him to reinduct into service to continue in service till he completes 62 years.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of E.O.O.(HRD) Rt. No.09/2021, dt.05-02-2021 of the Sth respondent in so far as petitioner is concerned in order to allow the petitioner to continue In service till he completes the age of sixty-two (62) years just like that was done when the date of superannuation got enhanced from 58 years to 60 years in 5‘ respondent's organisation in the light of the interim order dt.09-032023 passed in IA.No.1 of 2023 in WP No.5840 of 2023 and also without reference to the fact that he already got relieved from service on 31-01-2022.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Between:
...Petitioners/Respondents AND
-n
1. N Gangadhar, S/o. Palla Rao, Age. 61 years, Occ. Rtd. Chief General Manager (RA, PP and QC), R/o.50-1-52/1, Sri Nilayam, Near Kshatriya Kalyana Mandapam, Seethamma Dhara, Alluri Sitarama Raju Nagar, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh-530013.
...Respondent/Petitioner
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
4. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra
5. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.
...Respondents/Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 04.04.2023 in lA. No. 1 of 2023 WP.No.8403 of . 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - II
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI,
SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SC for APEPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 8404 OF 2023
Between:
K N CH V Raju, S/o. Sundara Rao, Age 60 years, Occ Rtd. Sr. Line Inspector, R/o.27-23-49/1, Ameenapeta, Etigattu, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh
...Petitioner
AND
•1
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1®‘ respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5*’’ respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years and also the action of the 5'^ respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5**’ respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) AND (2) of the APS€B Service Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years and further the action of the Executive Engineer, Operation Division Eluru O/o. the 7**’ respondent in saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f.,28-02-2023 instead of choosing to continue in service till he completes 62 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of the Arts.14, 16 AND 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the 5t/1 respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the.employees of Sth respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5th respondent or not and also set aside the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f.,28-02-2023 enabling him to reinduct into service to continue in service till he completes 62 years.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Memo. NofE/O/ELR/JAO/ADM/UI/D.N0.65/23, dt.1901- 2023 of the Executive Engineer, Operation Division :: Eluru O/o. the 7th respondent in so far as petitioner is concerned in order to allow the petitioner to coritinue in service till he completes the age of sixty-two (62) years just like that was done when the date of superannuation got enhanced from 58 years to 60 years in 5th respondent's organisation in the light of the interim order dt.09-032023 passed in lA No.1 of 2023 in WP No.5840 of 2023 and also without reference to the fact that he already got relieved from service on 28-02-2023.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Between:
3. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation). APEPDCL, Eluru Operation Circle, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
1. K N CH V Raju, S/o. Sundara Rao, Age 60 years, Occ Rtd. Sr. Line Inspector, R/o.27-23-49/1, Ameenapeta, Etigattu, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents/Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 04.04.2023 in lA. No. 1 of 2023 in WP.No.8404 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,
SCforAPEPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 8405 OF 2023
Between:
M Edwin Fastin, S/o. Edwin, Age. 60 years, Occ. Rtd. Senior Assistant, R/o. 13-65, Vidya Nagar, Near Mother Theresa Water Plant, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
Andhra Pradesh.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i. declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also ii. the action of the 5**’ respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5*^ respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the ag^e of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and further iii. the action of the 7 respondent in saying to retire the petitioner frorh service w.e.f.,28-02-2023 instead of choosing to continue in service till he completes 62 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of the Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and iv. consequently, direct the 5th respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5th respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5th respondent or
ir
not and also set aside the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f.,28-02-2023 enabling him to reinduct into service to continue in service till he completes 62 years.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Memo. No. SE/O/ELR/SAO/ADM/ PO/C1/F.RT.2023/ D.No.379940/21, dt.21-12-2021 of the 7*” respondent in so far as petitioner is concerned in order to allow the petitioner to continue in service till he completes the age of sixty-tvvo (62) years just like that was done when the date of superannuation got enhanced from 58 years to 60 years in 5th respondent's organisation in the light of the interim order dt.09-03- 2023 passed in lA No.1 of 2023 in WP No.5840 of 2023 and also without reference to the fact that he already got relieved from service on 28-02-2023.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Between:
2. The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Eluru Operation Circle, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
...Respondent/Petitioner
...Respondents/Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 04.04.2023 in IA.No.1 of 2023 in WP.No 8405 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,
SCforAPEPDCL
Counsel for the Respondents 8 to 9: SRI N.HARINATH. DSG
WRIT PETITION NO: 8416 OF 2023
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus, i) declaring the action of the 1®‘ Respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancerhent of the age of superannuation from 60 years to €2
years ii). and also the action of the 5“’ respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5‘^ respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) & (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-I which was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years iii) and further the action of the 5**’ respondent in retiring the petitioners from service w.e.f. 31-05-2022 and 31-03-2022 instead of choosing them to continue in service till they complete 62 years of age which was done for Government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance - 2022) and G O. Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR 86LR) Department dt.31-01-2022 . is illegal,, arbitrary, discriminatory and yiplative of Art, 14 of the. Constitution of India iv) and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years and set aside the retirement of the petitioners with effect from 31-05-2022 and 31-03-2022 enabling them to continue in service till they complete 62 years of age.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 5th respondent to allow the petitioners to continue in service till completion of 62 years of age without reference to the fact that they got already retired from service spit 31-05-2022 and 31-03-2022, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI V.R.REDDY KOVVURI, SC for APEPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 8431 OF 2023
Between:
Gorla Chiranjeevi Rao, S/o. Punnayya, Age. 60 years, Occ. Rtd. Chief General Manager (Commercial), R/o. S4, Rock Dale Residency, Rock Dale Layout, Ramnagar, Behind Apollo Hospital, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh-5300d2.
...Petitioner
■
3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
4. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.
5. The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd,., Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
6. The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
7. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Power, New AND Renewable Energy Department, Atal Akshay Urja Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
8. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110 004,
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated -in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i. declaring the action of the 1 respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees -of 5*” respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also ii. the action of the 5*’’ respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5*’’ respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) AND (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 Just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and further iii. the action of the 5th respondent in saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f., 31-08-2022 instead of choosing to continue in service till he completes 62 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation* besides violative of the .Arts.14, 16 AND 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the 5**’ respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of . the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5th respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5*^ respondent or not and also set aside the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f., 31-08-2022 enabling him toTeinduct into service to continue in service till he completes 62 years.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 GPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
n-
suspend the operation of E.O.p.(HRD) Rt. No.09/2021, dt.05-02-2021 of the 5*" respondent in so far as petitioner is concerned in order to allow the petitioner to continue in service till he completes the age of sixty-two (62) years just like that was done when the date of superannuation got enhanced from 58. years to 60 years in 5“* respondent's organisation in the light of the interim order dt.09-032023 passed in IA.No.1 of 2023 in WP No.5840 of 2023 and also without reference to the fact that he already got relieved from service on 31-08-2022.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Between:
...Petitioner
AND
7. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.
8. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Power, New AND Renewable Energy Department, Atal Akshay Urja Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.
9. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110 004.
...Respondents/Petitioners
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 04.04.2023 in lA. No. 1 of 2023 in WP. No. 8431 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI,
SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,
SCforAPEPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 8434 OF 2023
Between:
Sana Balusu Babu, S/o. Sana Rayudu, aged 59 years, Occ. Foreman, R/o.H.No.1-410/1, Flat No.301, Sai Towers. Western Street, Eluru, Eluru District
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1®* respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from .60 years to 62 years to the employees of respondent as was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also the action of the Sth respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5th respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) AND (2) of the APSES Service Regulations Part-1 as was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years and further the action of the 5*’’ respondent in saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f.,3004-2023 instead of choosing to continue in service till he completes 62 years as was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) and G.O.Ms. No. 15 Finance (HR.IV-FRANDLR) Department, dt.28-01-2023 as . illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colorable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of the Arts.14, 16 AND 21 of the Constitution of India.
-st-
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 to allow the Petitioner to continue in service till completion of 62 years of age in the light of the catena of orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in recent past pending disposal.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Betvyeen:
...Petitioner
AND ,
. District.
...Respondent/Petitioner
...Resporidents/Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 04.04.2023 in IA.No.1 of 2023 in WP.No.8434 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.RAVIKANTH
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SCforAPEPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 8485 OF 2023
Between:
Vurimi Veera Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Venkata Rao, Age. 61 years. Occ. Rtd. General Manager (Costing), R/o.HIG-207. APHB Colony, Bhavanipuram Vijayawada, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i. declaring the action of the 1®* respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5*’’ respondent Just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also ii. the action of the 5*’’ respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and further iii. the action of the 5th respondent In saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f.,30-06-2021 instead of choosing to continue in service till he completes 62 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of the Arts.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and iv. consequently, direct the 5th respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance
the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5th respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5th respondent or not and also set aside the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f.,30-06-2021 enabling him to reinduct into service to continue in service till he completes 62 years.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of S.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Rt. No.479, dt.20-07-2020 of the 5'” respondent in so far as petitioner is concerned in order to allow the petitioner to continue in service till he completes the age of sixty-two (62) years just like that was done when the date of superannuation got enhanced from 58 years to 60 years in 5*** respondent's organisation in the light of the interim order dt.09-032023 passed in lA No.1 of 2023 in WP No.5840 of 2023 and also without reference to the fact that he already got relieved from service on 30-06-2021.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI V.R.REDDY KOVVURI, SC for APSPDCL
Counsel for the Respondents 7 & 8: SRI N.HARINATH, DSG
WRIT PETITION NO: 8612 OF 2023
Between:
Geddam Seshaiah, S/o; Peda Veera Venkayya, aged 59 years, Occ. Lineman, R/o.H.No.4-47, SC Pet, Behind Luthern Church, Seethanagaram Mandalam, Muggufla, East Godavari District, A.P.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Principar Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1®‘ respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of Sth respondent as was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also the action of the ,5th respondent In not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to .62 years to the employees of the 5“’ respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 as was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years and further the action of the Respondent nos.5 to 8 in saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f., 30-06-2023 instead of choosing to continue in service till he completes 62 years as was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) and G.O.Ms. No. 15 Finance (HR.IVFRandLR) Department, dt.28-01-2023 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation* besides violative of the Arts.14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.5 to 8 to allow the Petitioner to continue in service till completion of 62 years of age in the light of the catena of orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in recent past pending disposal of the above writ petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Between:
3. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram Operation Circle, Rajahamendravaram, East Godavari District, Andhra. Pradesh.
4. The Executive Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram Operation Circle, Rajahamendravaram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
1. Geddam Seshaiah, S/o. Peda Veera Venkayya, aged 59 years, Occ. Linemanj R/o.H.No.4-47, SC Pet, Behind Luthern Church, Seethanagaram Mandalam, Muggulla, East Godavari District, A.P.
...Respondent/Petitioner
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
4. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents/Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 10.04.2023 in IA.No.1 of 2023 in WP.No.8612 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.RAVIKANTH
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APGENCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 8: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SC for APEPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 8808 OF 2023
Between:
Vinta Prakasa Rao, R/o.F.No.304, Geddappa Enclave, Kalinga Nagar, Madhava Dhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530013.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i. declaring the action of the 1®‘ respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5**’ respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also ii. the action of the 5th respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5th respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the APSEB service ,Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and further iii. the action of the 5th respondent in saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f.,31-07-2022 instead of choosing to continue in service till he completes 62 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 Ordinance-2022) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitirnate expectation' besides violative of the Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and iv. consequently, direct the 5th respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5'^ respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5th respondent or not and also set aside the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f.,31-07-2022 enabling him to reinduct into service to continue in service till he completes 62 years.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
suspend the operation of E.O.O.(HRD) Rt. No.09/2021. dt.05-02-2021 of the S'” respondent in so far as petitioner is concerned in order to allow the petitioner to continue in service till he completes the age of sixty-two (62) years just like that was done when the date of superannuation got enhanced from 58 years to 60 years in 5th respondent's organisation in the light of the interim order dt.09-032023 passed in lA No.1 of 2023 in WP No.5840 of 2023 and also without reference to the fact that he already got relieved from service on 31^07-2022.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Between:
...Respondents/Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 12.04.2023 in lA. No. 1 of 2023 in WP.No.8808 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SC for APEPDCL
Counsel for the Respondents 7 & 8: SRI N.HARINATH, DSG
WRIT PETITION NO: 8816 OF 2023
Between:
Sk Mohammad Vahad, S/o. Abdul Azeez, Age. 60 years, Occ. Rtd. Foreman Gr-IV, R/o.UD/ID-625, Sector-4, New 'B' Colony, Kondapalli, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh-521228.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i. declaring the action of the 1*‘ respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5**', respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also ii. the action of the 5th respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5th .respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and further iii. the action of the Superintending Engineer, OandM, CHP working under the administrative control of the 7th respondent in saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f.,30-06-2022 instead of choosing to continue in service till he completes 62 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of the Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and iv. consequently, direct the 5th respondent to send
proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of Sth respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from Sth respondent or not and also set aside the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f.,30-06-2022 enabling him to reinduct into service to continue in service till he completes 62 years.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Memo.No.SE/OandM/CHP/DR.NTTPS/SAO-ll/AOIV/AAO-l/JAO/OSS-ll/DNo.360/2021, dt.18-01-2021 of the Superintending Engineer, O and M, CHP working under the administrative control of the 7th respondent in so far as petitioner is concerned in order to allow the petitioner to continue in service till he completes the age of sixty-two (62) years just like that was done when the date of superannuation got enhanced from 58 years to 60 years in 5*’’ respondent's organisation in the light of the interim order dt.09-032023 passed in lA No.1 of 2023 in WP No.5840 of 2023 and also without reference to the fact that he already got relieved from service on 30-06-2022.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES I
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI M.VIDYASAGAR, SC for APGENCO
WRIT PETITION NO: 8958 OF 2023
Between:
Sigilipalli Anandarao, S/o Late Ramachandrudu, Aged about 61 years, Occ. APEPDC Ltd, R/o Prasant Nagar, Near G.P.Home, Polaki road, Narsannapeta, Town and Mandal, Srikakulam District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus - (i) declaring the action of the 1®‘ respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also from 62 years to 65 years to the employees of respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the ag6 of superannuation from 5,8 years to 60 years, and also (ii) the action of the respondent In not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also from 62 to 65 years to the employees of the Sth respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and further (lii)the action of the Sth respondent in saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f.,31-07-2022 instead of choosing to continue in service till he completes 62 and 65 years just like that was done for government employees undfer the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) and G O.Ms. No.15 Finance (HR.IV-FRandLR) Department, dt.28-01-2023 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of the Arts.14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and (iv) consequently, direct the 5*^ respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years at first instance and from 62 years to 65 years finally and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also from 62 years to 65 years to the employees of 5th respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5th respondent or not and also set aside the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f.,31-07-2022 enabling him to reinduct into service to continue in service till he completes 62 years and also 5 years.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Sth respondent to allow the petitioner to continue in service till completion of 62 years of age without reference to the fact that he got already retired from
■lA
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI UMASANKAR LOKANADHAM
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1
Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SC for APEPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 9619 OF 2023
Between:
Veeramallu Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Pullaiah, Age. 59 years, Occ. Line Inspector, R/o.8-1923, 4*^ Street, Adilakshmi Nagar, Ravulapalem Village, Post and Mandal, Dr. BR Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1** respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5**’ respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also the action of the 5*^ respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5‘^ respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a)
^35^^
(1) AND (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and further the action of the Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Amalapuram working under the administrative control of the 7^^ respondent in saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f.,31-06-2023 vide Memo No.EE/O/APM/ADM/JAO/SA1/D.No. 1/393269/2022, dt.02-03-2022 instead of choosing him to continue in service till he completes 62 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of the Arts. 14, 16 AND 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the 5th respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5th respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5th respondent or not and also set aside the retirement notice given by the Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Amalapuram working under the administrative control of the 7th respondent vide Memo No.EE/0/APM/ADM/JAO/SA-1/D.No.1/393269/2022, dt.02-03-2022.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Memo No.EE/O/APM/ADM/JAO/SAl/D.No.1/393269/2022, dt.02-03-2022 issued by the Executive Engineer, Operation Division, Amalapuram working under the administrative control of the 7th respondent in order to allow the petitioner to continue in service without relieving him from service till he completes the age-of sixty-two (62) years just like that was done when the date of superannuation got enhanced from 58 years to 60 years in Sth respondent's organisation in the light of the interim order dt.09-032023 passed in lA No.1 of 2023 in WP No.5840 of 2023.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Between:
...Petitioners/Respondents
AND
1. Veeramallu Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Puilaiah, Age. 59 years, Occ. Line Inspector, R/o.8-1923, 4*” Street, Adilakshmi Nagar, Ravulapalem Village, Post and Mandal, Dr. BR Ambedkar Konaseema District. Andhra Pradesh.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents/Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 19.04.2023 in lA. No. 1 of 2023 in WP.No.9619 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SG for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,
WRIT PETITION NO: 9625 OF 2023
Between:
Ganja Subba Rao, S/o. Janardhana Rad. Age. 60 years, Occ. Rtd. Sr. Line Inspector, R/O..15-41/2, Near Kondalamma Chinta Temple, Mummidivaram Village, Post and Mandal, Dr. BR Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
5. The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing-Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
6. The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
7. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram Operation Circle, Rajamahendravaram, Rajamahendravaram District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i. declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5*’’ respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also ii. the action of the 5”’ respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5*’’ respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and further iii. the action of the Executive Engineer, Operation Division .. Amalapuram working under the administrative control of the 7th respondent In saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f.,30-09-2022 instead of choosing to continue in service till he completes 62 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of the Arts.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and iv. consequently, direct the 5th respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5th respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5th respondent or not and also set aside the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f.,30-09-2022 enabling him to reinduct into service to continue in service till he completes 62 years.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Memo.No.EE/O/APM/ADM/JAO/SA1/D.No. 1/309806/2020, dt.22-12-2020 of the Executive Engineer, Operation Division Amalapuram working under the administrative control of the 7“^ respondent In so far as petitioner is concerned in order to allow the petitioner to continue in service till he completes the age of sixty-two (62) years just like that was done when the date of superannuation got enhanced from 58 years to 60
35^^
years in respondent's organisation in the light of the interim order dt.09-032023 passed in IA.No.1 of 2023 in WP.No.5840 of 2023 and also without reference to the fact that he already got relieved from service on 30-09-2022.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Between:
...Petitioners/Respondents
1. Ganja Subba Rao, S/o. Janardhana Rao, Age. 60 years, Occ. Rtd. Sr. Line Inspector, R/o.15-41/2, Near Kondalamma Chinta Temple, Mummidivaram Village, Post and Mandal, Dr. BR Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondent/Petitioner
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep; by Its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh.
4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents/Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 19.04.2023 in IA.No.1 of 2023 in WP.No.9625 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SCforAPEPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 9631 OF 2023
Between: V Kanakam, SZo. Suryanarayana, Age. 60 years, Occ. Rtd. Sr. Line Inspector, R/o.535, Near Santa Market, Allavaram Village, Post and Mandal, Dr. BR Ambedkar Kohaseema District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i.declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5th respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also ii.the action of the 5th respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5'h respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years and further iii. the action of the Executive Engineer, Operation Division Amalapuram working under the administrative control of the 7‘*’ respondent in saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f.,31-03-2023 instead of choosing to continue in service till he completes 62 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the 'doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of the Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and iv.consequently, direct the 5'” respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of
-<5^
superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5*’’ respondent or not and also set aside the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f.,31-03-2023 enabling him to reinduct into service to continue in service tilf he completes 62 years.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Memo No.EE/O/APM/ADM/JAO/SA1/D.No. 1/393269/2022, dt.02-03-2022 of the Executive Engineer, Operation Division :: Amalapuram working under the administrative control of the 7*** respondent in so far as petitioner is concerned in order to allow the petitioner to continue in service till he completes the age of sixty-two (62) years just like that was done when the date of superannuation got enhanced from 58 years to 60 years in 5*” respondent's organisation in the light of the interim order dt.09-032023 passed in lA No.1 of 2023 in WP No.5840 of 2023 and also without reference to the fact that he already got relieved from service on 31-03-2023.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Between:
...Respondents/Respondents
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 19.04.2023 in lA. No. 1 of 2023 in WP. No. 9631 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI,
SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,
SCforAPEPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 9982 OF 2023
Between:
Sode Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o Sode Balaramayya, Aged about 60 years, RZo D.No.20808, Mulapeta, Near Sanskrit College, Dargamitta, Nellore.
...Petitioner
AND
4. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520 004.
5. The Southern Power Distribution Cornpany of AR Ltd. , Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Srinivasapuram, Behind Srinivasa Kalyn Mandapam, Tirupati, tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh.
6. The Chief General Manger (HRD), APSPDCL, Corporate Office,
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of Respondent No.5 relieved the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years w.e.f. 31-12-2022, and there by not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of the superannuation from 60 to 62 years to the employees of 5th Respondent by amending the regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1, Is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art-14, 21 and 309 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Sth Respondent to send proposals to Respondents No.1 to 3 seeking permission to enable them to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees.of 5‘^ Respondent.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed In support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.5 to Reinstate the petitioner into service. .
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI V.R.REDDY KOVVURI,
SCforAPSPDCL
WRIT PETITION NO: 10110 OF 2023
Between:
N Karunakar Reddy, S/o. Rama Krishna Reddy, Age. 59 years, Occ. Executive Engineer (Electrical), O/o. the Chief Engineer (O AND M), RTPP, V.V.Reddy Nagar, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
4. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Victyu.Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520 004.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, orders or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1’* respondent in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5*'’ respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and also the action of the S®* respondent in not sending proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to
r
the employees of the 5"’ respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) AND (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, and further the action of the 6th respondent in saying to retire the petitioner from service w.e.f.,31-05-2023 vide G.O.O.No.79/CGM(Adm.lSAND ERP)/2022. dt.14-07-2022 instead of choosing him to continue in service till he completes 62 years just like that was done for government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No,1 of 2022 (Ordinance-2022) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, unjust, colourable exercise of powers, opposed to the doctrine of legitimate expectation' besides violative of the Arts.14, 16 AND 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the 5*’’ respondent to send proposals to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to enable him to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years and also direct the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of 5th respondent just like that was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years without reference to the fact that such proposals for enhancement of the age of superannuation are received from 5th respondent or not and also set aside the retirement notice given by the 6th respondent vide G.O.O.No.79/CGM(Adm.lSAND ERP)/2022, dt.14-07-2022,
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of G.O.O.No.79/CGM(Adm.lS&ERP)/2022, dt. 14-07-2022 issued by the 6th respondent in order to allow the-petitioner to continue in service without relieving him from service till he completes the age of sixty-two (62) years just like that was done when the date of superannuation got enhanced from 58 years to 60 years in 5th respondent's organisation in the light of the interim order dt.09-03- 2023 passed in lA No. 1 of 2023 in WP No.5840 of 2023.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI M.VIDYASAGAR, SC for APGENCO
WRIT PETITION NO: 10136 OF 2023
Between:
.ciS
(NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus (1) declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years to the employees working in the respondent No.6, (2) declaring the action of the respondent No.6 in not sending the proposals to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 seeking for enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years to the employees working with the responderit No.6 amending Regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the A.P.S.E.B. Service Regulations (Part-I) (3) declaring the action of the respondent No.6 in retiring the petitioners from the service on reaching the age of 60 years without continuing them in service till they complete the age of 62 years vide A.P. Ordinance No. 01/2022 as illegal, arbitrary and discriminative, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India (4) directing the respondent No. 4 to 6 to send the proposals to the respondent Nos., 1 to 3 to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years extending the benefit of superannuation to 62 years and also to extend the benefits of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years to the employees of the respondent No.6 without reference to the fact that they received the benefits of superannuation and to set-aside the retirement of the petitioners vide proceedings shown in the Annexure, rein ducting in service till completes 62 years.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings vide Annexure retiring the petitioners from service besides directing to continue the petitioners in service till they complete the age of 62 years pending W.P.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 6 to send the proposals to the respondent Nos., 1 to 3 to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years and to direct the respondent Nos., 1 to 3 to act on such proposals pending W.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARUMANCHIINDRANEEL BABU
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI,
SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI M.VIDYASAGAR, SC for APGENCO
WRIT PETITION NO: 10418 OF 2023
Between:
T J Prabhakar Rao, S/o. Mark Aged 60 years, Occ. Retd. Line Inspector O/o Assistant Engineer, Operation Division, APCPDCL, Markapur, Prakasam District Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus i) declaring the action of the 1®‘ Respondent in not extending the enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years ii) and also the action of the 5^ respondent in not sending proposals to the
respondents 1 to 3 seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 5th respondent by choosing to amend the Regulation 16 (a) (1) and (2) of the APSEB Service Regulations Part-1 which was done earlier while enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years iii) and further the action of the 5“ respondent in retiring the petitioner from service w.e.f. 28-02-2023 instead of choosing him to continue in service till he completes 62 years of age which was done for Government employees under the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 (Ordinance - 2022) and G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV FR and LR) Department dt.31-01-2022 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India, iv) and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years and set aside the retirement of the petitioner with effect from 28-02-2023 enabling him to continue in service till he completes 62 years of age.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 5*” respondent to allow the petitioner to continue in service till completion of 62 years of age without reference to the fact that he got already retired from service on 28-02-2023, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO
Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI V.R.REDDY KOVVURI,
SCforAPCPDCL
The Court made the following: common order
V
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
W.P.Nos.5840, 8169, 8181, 8360, 8401, 8403, 8404, 8405, 8416, 8431, 8434, 8485, 8612, 8808, 8816, 8958, 9619, 9625^ 9631, 9982, 10110, 10136.and 10418 of 2023
COMMON^ ORDER:
All these petitions are filed claiming same relief by different petitioners, but the issue involved in these petitions is one and the same. Therefore, 1 am of the view that it is appropriate to decide all the petitions by common order.
These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the action of the respondents, in retiring the petitioners from, service at the age of sixty (60) years without allowing them to remain in service till they attain the age of superannuation of sixty-two (62) years, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, discriminatoiy and consequently allow the petitioners to continue in service upto the age of sixty-two (62) years with all consequential benefits in accordance with law.
The facts of the present cases, in brief, are that the petitioners are working in APSPDCL/APTransco/APGenco /APCPDCL. The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022 was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part IV-B 5 j
2
VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch
Extraordinaiy on 31.01.2022 by way of Ordinance No.l of 2022 wherein, the age of superannuation was enhanced from 60 to 62 years vide G.O.Ms.No. 15 Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR), dated 31.01.2022.
the petitioners submit that, in pursuance of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014 (Act No.4/2014), orders were issued in G.0.Ms.No.l47 Finance (HRM IV) Department, dated 30.06.2014, enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years to the State Government employees. Subsequently, vide G.O.Ms.No. 102 Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department, dated 27.06.2017, permission was accorded, enhancing the age of superannuation of employees from 58 years to 60 years, working in the institutions listed in Schedules .IX and X of A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014, subject to the condition that specific decision to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years to their employees shall be. taken by the Board of Directors/Management Committees, taking into consideration their financial position and genuineness of their need to enhance the age of
superannuation.
3 VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch.
Thereafter, the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited as per G.O.Ms.No.l02 (HR.IV-FR) Department, dated 27.06.2017, issued orders enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60.years to its employees, vide S.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Ms.No.585, dated 29.06.2017.
The petitioners submit that policies of the Government issued from time to time on different counts for the State Government employees viz.. House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, Allowances of Additional Quantum of pension/family pension to those pensioners/family pensioners etc., have been adopted by the respondents. By virtue of enhancing the age from 58 years to 60 years, the employees are being, continued.till completion of 60 years.
While the things stood thus, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 15, Finance (HR IV - FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 enhancing the age of superannuation of its employees from 60 years to 62 years. It is the contention of the petitioners that such enhancement of age from 60 years to 62 years, was arbitrarily and discriminatively not extended to the employees of the institutions/Public Sector Undertakings listed
i ... .
j
•J
J
1 i
I • •
I
4
VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch
under Schedules IX and X of the A.P. Re-organisation Act, 2014. It is contended that the respondents - Corporations did not initiate any kind of affirmative steps to send proposal to the State Government requesting to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees from 60 to 62 years. Due to this reason, many of the employees were forced to retire immediately after completion of 60 years of service and some of them have already retired, thereby putting the employees to severe and irreparable loss. The inaction on the part of the respondents in not sending proposals, seeking permission to enhance the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years is illegal, arbitrary discriminative and violative of Articles, 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the same is challenged in the present writ petitions.
Respondents filed counter affidavits in. some writ petitions, contending that the employees working in the respondents - Corporations do not fall under the category of Government employees and even their salaries are paid from the revenue of the Corporation and not from the consolidated fund of State.
5
VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch
It is further contended that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.l033 of 2022 and batch held that Act 23 of 1984 is not applicable to the employees working under various corporations and state undertakings and as such they cannot claim enhancement of retirement age to 62 years as a matter of right. Earlier the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 102 dated 27.06.2017 enhancing the age of superannuation of employees working in the institutions listed in IX and X Schedule Institutions from 58 to 60. Paragraph No.4 of the said
G.O.Ms.No. 102 is as follows:
“4. Government after careful examination of the matter hereby accord to give in principle approval to enhance the age of superannuation of employees working in the institutions listed in IX and X Schedule Institutions subject to the following conditions:
6
VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch
It is further contended that in view of the common order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch, the petitioners herein are not entitled for enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 62 years as Act 23 of 1984 do not apply to them and they do not fall under the category of a Government employee. In view of the clarification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide circular memo dated 23.09.2022, the petitioners are entitled to continue in service only up to 60 years as the said circular memo specifically states that the amendment made under Act 4 of 2022 does not apply to the public sector undertakings and Government Corporations.
It is further contended that as many corporations are adopting the enhancement of retirement age . from 60 to 62 years without permission from the Government, the Government has issued a circular vide Cir.Memo.No.1813129/ FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.09.2022 clarifying that the enhancement of retirement age from 60 to 62 years is only for the Government employees and not for employees working in Corporations and Government undertakings and ordered all the Corporations to take remedial action. Therefore, the petitioners
7
VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch
are not entitled to continue in service beyond 60 years and
requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the APSPDCL/APCPDCL/APTransco/APGenco ought to have sent proposals to the State Government for enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years as was done earlier. The respondents ought to have amended the Service Rules and Regulations, enabling the employees to continue in service till they attain the age of 62 years. Learned counsel would further contend that initially, enhancement of age from 58 to 60 years was extended to the employees who belong to the Public Sector Undertakings of. the State Government, but the same was not done now, and without getting this benefit, many employees got retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that petitioners are working in the respondents - corporations, which are Public Sector Undertakings as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. He submits that . pursuant to (Amendment) Act No.4 of 2022 to Act No.23 of 1984, respondents ought to have addressed a letter(s) to the
8
VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch
higher authorities requesting to enhance the age of superannuation in respect of its employees on par with the State Government employees whose age of superannuation was enhanced from 60 years to 62 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that as per Section 1 (2) of Act No.23 of 1984, a person who is appointed, to Public Services in connection with the affairs of the State is termed as “an employee of the Government” and as such his service conditions should be reckoned on par with the State Government employees. Learned counsel for the petitioners would strenuously contend that the petitioners herein who are employees of respondents - corporations are rendering their services in connection with the affairs of the : State, as such the petitioners herein also fall within the definition of Section 1 (2) of Act No.23 of 1984, thereby they are entitled for enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Corporations submits that, in “The Managing Director, vs.
I III II I
9
VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch
C.Chandrasekhar Reddyi”, the Division Bench of this Court upheld the contention of the Corporation while setting aside the impugned nrder therein of the learned Single Judge, in which the age of superannuation was enhanced from 60 to 62 years. He further submits that the services of the petitioners cannot be equated with the services of the State Government employees and Act No.4 of 2022 is not at all applicable to the petitioners
herein.
The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the employees of the respondents are not entitled for enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years. He alscfc points out that the Service Rules of the Corporation Employees were also misinterpreted and those Service Rules do not come under the purview of Service Rules made under Article 301 of the Constitution of India and requested to dismiss the writ petitions.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch, dated 05,05.2023
10
VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch
It is a fact that the petitioners were employed in the respondents Corporations. The primary contention is that when the resporidents are adopting all the policies of the State Government which are applicable to the State Government employees viz., HRA, CCA, etc. the present benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years ought to have been adopted up by the respondents.
Cir.Memo.No.l813129/ FINO.l -HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.09.2022, wherein it is observed that 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 and clarified that the order issued vide G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR IV - FRSbLR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 read with the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2022 (Act 4 of 2022) are applicable in respect of no other category of
employee except the following:
1.1
VS,J . Wps.5840_2023 and batch
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 rules framed under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India immediately before the commencement of this Act, other than the village officers and' law officers; whether appointed before or after the commencement of this Act.
In “The Managing Director vs. C.Chandrasekhar Reddy
(referred supra)” wherein it is held as follows: -
“22. Thereafter, after considering the submissions made die Division Bench came to thefollowing among other conclusions:“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 of60 years. As employees ofpublic sector undertakings are not persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Stale, 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 ofDirectors/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 13 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
12
VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch
undertakings claim the right to continue in service upto the enhanced age ofsuperannuation of60 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 • govemrhent servants automatically apply to employees of Public Sector Undertakings, nor does the plea of discrimination, or of violation ofArticle 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 ofits employees, accordingly. It is only ifthe rules, governing the age ofsuperannuation, 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 DC Schedule to the 2014 Central Act, are distinct legal entities and are neither departments, nor form part, of the State Government. The Board of EHrectors/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 ofAssociation insofar as Companies/Corporations are concerned, and the byelaws and the provisions of the Act whereunder the 14 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 ofeach of these Companies, and the bye-laws of each of these Societies. Neither the 1984 Act, nor the Rules made by the Covemmentfor 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 ofA.P. without these legal entities amending its rules/regulations/bye-laws, 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 petitioner 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
lui- II n
13
VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch
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 superannuationpreserved under the Rules/bye-laws."
23. Pursuant to this decision of the Division Bench two G.Os., were issued viz., G.O.Ms.No.l 12 dated 18.06.2016 and 15 G.0.Ms.No.l02, dated 27.06.2017.Tn G.O. Ms.No.l02, dated 27.06.2017, in paragraph 4 the following is stated: “4. Government after careful examination of the matter hereby accord to give in principle approval to enhance the age of superannuation of employees 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."
36. According to-the learned counsel-for the respondents, the Act is incorporated into the service of the rules. Therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled to the- relief. On the other hand it is contended that there is merely a re/erence to the Act No.23 of 1984 arid it is not incorporated.-.
40. This Court alsofinds that in the counter affidavitfiled the respondent No.l 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 dearly 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 learnedAdvocate General submitted that this decision is spelt out by the memo, dated 23.09.2022, which dearly states G.O.Ms.No.l5 is applicable to the employees, who are described in Section 1(2) ofthe Act only. It is also darified 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."
14
VS,J . Wps.5840_2023 and batch
This Court finds that the learned Standing Counsel had clearly specified that they had sought a clarification from the Governmerit of Andhra Pradesh as to whether enhancement of age from 60 to 62 years would apply to Corporations, Public Sector Undertakings and institutions listed under Schedules IX and X of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014. The present writ petitions are premature till the Government takes a decision on the matter. Even, in the past, it is stated that the Government issued supporting orders . for
Corporations/Societies for enhancement of age. Therefore, the case of the petitioners will be considered on similar lines once the decision of the Government is obtained. It was also clarified by the Government that certain PSUs, Corporation have enhanced the age of superannuation to 62 years without getting necessary approval and sanction and therefore rerriedial action has to be taken by the very appointed authority. In The Managing Director vs. C.Chandrasekhar Reddy, (referred supra) the Division Bench of this Court had set. aside the orders of the learned Single Judge on the ground that writ of Mandamus cannot be issued in the circumstances of this
• • •;
15 • VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch
I V
nature, as there is no right to the writ petitioners to seek the relief.
The Government issued clarification vide Cir. Memo.No. 1813129/ FINO 1 -HR/212/2022-HR-IV. dated
23.09.2022 clarifying that the enhancement of retirement age, from 60 to 62 years issued vide G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 is only for the Government employees and not for employees working in Corporations and Government undertakings.
Hence, in view of the clarification issued by the Government vide Cir.Memo.No.l813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022HR-IV dated 23.09.2022 and 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 and addressing the same to the State Government in respect of enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years on par with the employees of State Government. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall . be ho order as to costs.
16
VS J Wps.5840_2023 and batch
In view of the dismissal of the main writ petitions, the interim order, if any, passed in the writ petitions shall stand
vacated.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
these writ petitions shall stand closed
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- P.VENKATA RAMANA JOIN1\REGIS;^AR SECTli OFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED:30/08/2023
COMMON ORDER
WP.Nos. 5840, 8169,8181, 8360, 8401, 8403, 8404, 8405, 8416,8431, 8434, 8485, 8612, 8808, 8816,8958, 9619, 9625, 9631, 9982,10110, 10136 and 10418 of 2023
<2?
DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether employees of public sector undertakings are entitled to enhancement of superannuation age from 60 to 62 years as government employees.
Whether the respondents' failure to send proposals seeking permission for age enhancement amounts to arbitrary action violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21.
Whether service conditions of corporation employees equate with government employees under Act 23 of 1984 and Act 4 of 2022.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Managing Director, vs. C.Chandrasekhar ReddyFollowed¶817
The Managing Director, vs. C.Chandrasekhar Reddy
W.A.No.l033 of 2022 and batchFollowed¶806
W.A.No.l033 of 2022 and batch
Gedela Suryanarayana
T Lakshmana Rao
Gogula Appala Naidu
Veerla Ravi
N Gangadhar
K N CH V Raju
V. SUJATHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
