Dismissed

N Gangadhar v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC30 Aug 2023WP/8403/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of over 20 batch writ petitions filed by former employees of APEPDCL, APGENCO, and APTRANSCO. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that public sector undertakings must follow their respective Articles of Association and Board resolutions to claim enhanced retirement ages.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed with no order as to costs; interim orders vacated.

N Gangadhar Vs the State of Ap — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

4 / ■ .. 7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

A -ov

¶7

la S
*

¶8

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

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 5840 OF 2023

¶10

Between:

¶11

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.

¶12

...Petitioner

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

2: The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat. Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶16

3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh;

¶17

4. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶18

5. The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶19

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶20

The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Vizianagaram Operation Circle, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶21

...Respondents

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.

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶27

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.

¶28

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶29

Between:

¶30

1. The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶31

2. The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶32

3. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Vizianagaram Operation Circle, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶33

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶34

AND

¶35

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.

¶36

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶37

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary. Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶38

-3-

¶39

3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶40

4. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶41

5. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶42

...Respondents/Respondents

¶43

... 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.

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶45

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶47

Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,

¶48

SCforAPEPDCL

¶49

WRIT PETITION NO: 8169 OF 2023

¶50

Between:

¶51

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.

¶52

...Petitioner

¶53

AND

¶54

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. .

¶55

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶56

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶57

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶58

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶59

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶60

...Respondents

¶61

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

¶62

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.

¶63

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶64

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.

¶65

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶66

Between:

¶67

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶68

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara,'Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶69

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶70

AND

¶71

¶72

T Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Jaggayya, Age. 60 years, Occ. Superintending Engineer (Civil), Corporate Office, AP EPDCL, Pand T Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-53001'3.

¶73

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶74

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, VelagapudI, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶75

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶76

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶77

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶78

...Respondents/Respondents

¶79

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.

¶80

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶81

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1

¶82

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶83

Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SC for APEPDCL

¶84

WRIT PETITION NO: 8360 OF 2023

¶85

Between:

¶86

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

¶87

...Petitioner

¶88

AND

¶89

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thullur Mandal, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶90

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department; Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thullur Mandal, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶91

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General

¶92

Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thullur Mandal, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶93

Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. (AP Transco), Vidyut Souda, Eiuru Road, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520004.

¶94

— (o

¶95

Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., (APEPDCL), Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Vishakhapatnam, Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶96

The Chief General.Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

¶97

The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APEPDCL, Srikakulam.

¶98

The Executive Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Palakonda Division, Palakonda, Srikakulam bistrict.

¶99

...Respondents

¶100

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.

¶101

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶102

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.

¶103

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶104

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.

¶105

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶106

Between:

¶107

The Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., (APEPDCL). Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Vishakhapatnam, Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director.

¶108

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

¶109

The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APEPDCL, Srikakulam.

¶110

4. The Executive Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Palakonda Division, Palakonda, Srikakulam District.

¶111

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶112

AND

¶113

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.

¶114

...RespondentZPetitioner

¶115

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thullur Mandal, Amaravathi, Guntur District, .

¶116

3. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thullur Mandat Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶117

4. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Thullur Mandal, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶118

5. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. (AP Transco), Vidyut Souda, Eluru Road, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520004.

¶119

...Respondents

¶120

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.

¶121

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMBABU KOPPINEEDi

¶122

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - II

¶123

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶124

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 8: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SC for APEPDCL

¶125

WRIT PETITION NO: 8401 OF 2023

¶126

Between:

¶127

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.

¶128

...Petitioner

¶129

AND

¶130

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶131

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶132

-8

¶133

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶134

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶135

The Central Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Beside Polytechnic College, ITI Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh - 520 008.

¶136

The Chielf General Manager (HRD), APCPDCL, Corporate Office, Beside Polytechnic College, ITI Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 520 008.

¶137

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.

¶138

8. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110 004

¶139

...Respondents

¶140

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.

¶141

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶142

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.

¶143

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶144

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - II

¶145

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI,

¶146

SC for APTRANSCO

¶147

Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI V.R.REDDY KOVVURI,

¶148

SCforAPCPDCL

¶149

Counsel for the Respondents 7 & 8: SRI N.HARINATH, DSG

¶150

WRIT PETITION NO: 8403 OF 2023

¶151

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.

¶152

...Petitioner

¶153

AND

¶154

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶155

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶156

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶157

The AP TRAN SCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶158

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam,

¶159

Andhra Pradesh.

¶160

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶161

...Respondents

¶162

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

¶163

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.

¶164

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶165

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.

¶166

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶167

Between:

¶168

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, VIsakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶169

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, VIsakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶170

...Petitioners/Respondents AND

¶171

-n

¶172

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.

¶173

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶174

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶175

3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶176

4. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra

¶177

Pradesh.

¶178

5. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶179

...Respondents/Respondents

¶180

¶181

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶182

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - II

¶183

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI,

¶184

SC for APTRANSCO

¶185

Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SC for APEPDCL

¶186

WRIT PETITION NO: 8404 OF 2023

¶187

Between:

¶188

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

¶189

...Petitioner

¶190

AND

¶191

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶192

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶193

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Deipartment, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra

¶194

Pradesh.

¶195

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520 004.

¶196

•1

¶197

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶198

The Chief General Manager, (HRD), APEPOCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶199

The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Eluru Operation Circle, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶200

...Respondents

¶201

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.

¶202

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶203

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.

¶204

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶205

Between:

¶206

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶207

The Chief General Manager, (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶208

3. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation). APEPDCL, Eluru Operation Circle, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶209

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶210

AND

¶211

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.

¶212

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶213

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶214

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat,. Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶215

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶216

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520 004.

¶217

...Respondents/Respondents

¶218

¶219

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶220

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1

¶221

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶222

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,

¶223

SCforAPEPDCL

¶224

WRIT PETITION NO: 8405 OF 2023

¶225

Between:

¶226

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.

¶227

...Petitioner

¶228

AND

¶229

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶230

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶231

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶232

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, VIdyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶233

The Eastern P owtw er Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam,

¶234

Andhra Pradesh.

¶235

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL. Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶236

The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Eluru Operation Circle, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶237

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.

¶238

The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110.004.

¶239

...Respondents

¶240

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

¶241

¶242

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.

¶243

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶244

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.

¶245

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶246

Between:

¶247

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶248

2. The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶249

3. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Eluru Operation Circle, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶250

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶251

AND

¶252

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.

¶253

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶254

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶255

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶256

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh;

¶257

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, VIdyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004. .

¶258

The Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, Power, New and Renewable Energy Department, Atal Akshay Urja Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,

¶259

NewDeihi-110 003.

¶260

The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110 004.

¶261

...Respondents/Respondents

¶262

¶263

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶264

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1

¶265

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶266

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,

¶267

SCforAPEPDCL

¶268

Counsel for the Respondents 8 to 9: SRI N.HARINATH. DSG

¶269

WRIT PETITION NO: 8416 OF 2023

¶270

Between:

¶271

Singari Prasanna Kumar, S/o. Prabhudas Aged 61 years, Occ. Retd. General Manager APCPDCL, Corporate Office, Vijayawada NTR District (Old Krishna District) Andhra Pradesh.

¶272

Jadi Raja Ram, S/o. Somaiah Aged 61 years, Occ. Retd. Executive Engineer O/o. TPSS, APCPDCL, Ongole Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶273

...Petitioners

¶274

AND

¶275

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Finance Department, A.P. Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶276

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Energy Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶277

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary General Administration Department A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District.

¶278

The A.P. TRANSCO, Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada NTR District, Andhra Pradesh

¶279

The Central Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director Corporate Office, Vijayawada, NTR District Andhra Pradesh.

¶280

The Chief General Manager (HRD) APCPDCL, Vijayawada, NTR District Andhra Pradesh.

¶281

The Superintending Engineer Operations Circle, Ongole Division Ongole, Prakasam District, AP.

¶282

...Respondents

¶283

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

¶284

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.

¶285

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶286

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.

¶287

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

¶288

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1

¶289

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶290

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI V.R.REDDY KOVVURI, SC for APEPDCL

¶291

WRIT PETITION NO: 8431 OF 2023

¶292

Between:

¶293

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.

¶294

...Petitioner

¶295

AND

¶296

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶297

1. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶298

■

¶299

3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶300

4. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶301

5. The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd,., Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶302

6. The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶303

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.

¶304

8. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110 004,

¶305

...Respondents

¶306

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.

¶307

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶308

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

¶309

¶310

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.

¶311

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶312

Between:

¶313

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶314

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶315

...Petitioner

¶316

AND

¶317

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-530002.

¶318

...RespondentZPetitioner

¶319

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶320

1. The Principal Secretary, Goverriment of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶321

1. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶322

7. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶323

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.

¶324

9. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110 004.

¶325

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶326

¶327

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶328

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I

¶329

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI,

¶330

SC for APTRANSCO

¶331

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,

¶332

SCforAPEPDCL

¶333

WRIT PETITION NO: 8434 OF 2023

¶334

Between:

¶335

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

¶336

...Petitioner

¶337

AND

¶338

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶339

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶340

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶341

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Director. Vidyut -Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520004.

¶342

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶343

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶344

The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Eluru Operation Circle, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh.

...Respondents

-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.

¶350

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶351

Betvyeen:

¶352

the Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam,

¶353

Andhra Pradesh.

¶354

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶355

The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Eluru Operation Circle, Eluru, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶356

...Petitioner

¶357

AND ,

¶358

Sana Balusu Babu, S/o. Sana Rayudu, aged 59 years, Occ. Foreman, R/o.H.No. 1-4-10/1, Flat No.301, Sai Towers, Western Street, Eluru, Eluru

¶359

. District.

¶360

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶361

The State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶362

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶363

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶364

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520004.

¶365

...Resporidents/Respondents

¶366

¶367

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.RAVIKANTH

¶368

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I

¶369

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶370

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SCforAPEPDCL

¶371

WRIT PETITION NO: 8485 OF 2023

¶372

Between:

¶373

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.

¶374

...Petitioner

¶375

AND

¶376

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶377

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶378

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶379

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶380

The Southern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Srinivasapuram, Behind Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam, Tirupati, TIrupati District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶381

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APSPDCL, Corporate Office, Srinivasapuram, Behind Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam, Tirupati, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶382

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.

¶383

The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Oelhi-110 004.

¶384

...Respondents

¶385

¶386

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.

¶387

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶388

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.

¶389

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶390

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1

¶391

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶392

Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI V.R.REDDY KOVVURI, SC for APSPDCL

¶393

Counsel for the Respondents 7 & 8: SRI N.HARINATH, DSG

¶394

WRIT PETITION NO: 8612 OF 2023

¶395

Between:

¶396

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.

¶397

...Petitioner

¶398

AND

¶399

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶400

2. The Principar Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶401

3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶402

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director., Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520004.

¶403

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶404

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶405

The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram Operation Circle, Rajahamendravaram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶406

The Executive Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram Operation Circle, Rajahamendravaram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh

...Respondents

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.

¶411

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶412

Between:

¶413

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶414

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶415

3. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram Operation Circle, Rajahamendravaram, East Godavari District, Andhra. Pradesh.

¶416

4. The Executive Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram Operation Circle, Rajahamendravaram, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶417

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶418

AND

¶419

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.

¶420

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶421

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶422

3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶423

4. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶424

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director., Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520004.

¶425

...Respondents/Respondents

¶426

¶427

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.RAVIKANTH

¶428

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1

¶429

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APGENCO

¶430

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 8: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SC for APEPDCL

¶431

WRIT PETITION NO: 8808 OF 2023

¶432

Between:

¶433

Vinta Prakasa Rao, R/o.F.No.304, Geddappa Enclave, Kalinga Nagar, Madhava Dhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530013.

¶434

...Petitioner

¶435

AND

¶436

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶437

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶438

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶439

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶440

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶441

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶442

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.

¶443

The Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, General Administration Department, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110 004;

¶444

...Respondents

¶445

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.

¶446

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶447

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

¶448

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.

¶449

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶450

Between:

¶451

the Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam,

¶452

Andhra Pradesh.

¶453

1. The Chief. General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶454

...PetitionersZRespondents

¶455

¶456

Vinta Prakasa Rao, R/o.F.No.304, Geddappa Enclave, Kalinga Nagar, Madhava Dhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530013.

¶457

...RespondentZPetitioner

¶458

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶459

3.. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶460

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶461

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶462

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.

¶463

The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi-110 004.

¶464

...Respondents/Respondents

¶465

¶466

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶467

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I

¶468

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶469

Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SC for APEPDCL

¶470

Counsel for the Respondents 7 & 8: SRI N.HARINATH, DSG

¶471

WRIT PETITION NO: 8816 OF 2023

¶472

Between:

¶473

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.

¶474

...Petitioner

¶475

AND

¶476

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶477

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶478

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶479

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶480

The AP GENCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520 004.

¶481

The Director (HR), AP GENCO, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520 004.

¶482

The Dr. Narla Tata Rao Thermal Power Station, Rep. by its Chief Engineer (OandM), Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, NTR District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶483

...Respondents

¶484

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

¶485

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.

¶486

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶487

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.

¶488

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶489

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶490

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶491

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI M.VIDYASAGAR, SC for APGENCO

¶492

WRIT PETITION NO: 8958 OF 2023

¶493

Between:

¶494

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.

¶495

...Petitioner

¶496

AND

¶497

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶498

2. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶499

3. The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra

¶500

Pradesh.

¶501

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004

¶502

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶503

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶504

The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Srikakulam Operation Circle, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶505

The Executive Engineer (operation), APEPDCL, Operation i Division, Tekkali Srikakulam District.

¶506

...Respondents

¶507

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.

¶508

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶509

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

¶510

■lA

¶511

service on 31-07-2022 in the light of the catena of orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in recent past.

¶512

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI UMASANKAR LOKANADHAM

¶513

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1

¶514

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶515

Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SC for APEPDCL

¶516

WRIT PETITION NO: 9619 OF 2023

¶517

Between:

¶518

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.

¶519

...Petitioner

¶520

AND

¶521

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶522

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶523

.3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶524

The AP TRANSCQ, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520 004.

¶525

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP, Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶526

The Chief General Manager, (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶527

The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram Operation Circle, Rajamahendravaram, Rajamahendravaram District, Andhra Pradesh.

...Respondents

^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.

¶532

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶533

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.

¶534

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶535

Between:

¶536

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP, Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶537

The Chief General Manager, (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. Andhra Pradesh.

¶538

The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram Operation Circle, Rajamahendravaram, Rajamahendravaram District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶539

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶540

AND

¶541

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.

¶542

...RespondentZPetitioner

¶543

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶544

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶545

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Departirient, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶546

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520 004.

¶547

...Respondents/Respondents

¶548

¶549

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶550

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I

¶551

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SG for APTRANSCO

¶552

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,

¶553

WRIT PETITION NO: 9625 OF 2023

¶554

Between:

¶555

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.

¶556

...Petitioner

¶557

AND

¶558

1 . The State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Principal Secretary. Finance Department, Secretariat. Velagapudi. Guntur District. Andhra Pradesh.

¶559

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶560

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat; Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶561

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004.

¶562

5. The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing-Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶563

6. The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶564

7. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram Operation Circle, Rajamahendravaram, Rajamahendravaram District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶565

...Respondents

¶566

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.

¶567

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶568

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

¶569

35^^

¶570

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.

¶571

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶572

Between:

¶573

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP, Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing. Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶574

The Chief General Manager, (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatriam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶575

The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram Operation Circle, Rajamahendravaram, Rajamahendravaram District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶576

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶577

AND

¶578

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.

¶579

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶580

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶581

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep; by Its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh.

¶582

4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶583

5.. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520 004.

¶584

...Respondents/Respondents

¶585

¶586

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶587

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I

¶588

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶589

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO, SCforAPEPDCL

¶590

WRIT PETITION NO: 9631 OF 2023

¶591

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.

¶592

...Petitioner

¶593

AND

¶594

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶595

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶596

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra

¶597

Pradesh.

¶598

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Director, Virlynt Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520 004.

¶599

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶600

The Chief General Manager (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶601

The Superintendent Engineer (Operation), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram Operation Circle, Rajamahendravaram, Rajamahendravaram District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶602

...Respondents

¶603

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

¶604

-<5^

¶605

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.

¶606

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶607

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.

¶608

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶609

Between:

¶610

The Eastern Power Distribution Corporation of AP, Ltd., Rep; by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶611

The Chief General Manager, (HRD), APEPDCL, Corporate Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

¶612

The Superintendent Engineer (Operation). APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram Operation Circle, Rajamahendravaram, Rajamahendravaram District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶613

...Petitioners/Respondents

¶614

¶615

1. V Kanakam, S/o. Suryanarayana, Age. 60 years, Occ. Rtd. Sr. Line Inspector, R/o.5-35, Near Santa Market, Allavaram Village, Post and Mandal, Dr. BR Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶616

...RespondentZPetitioner

¶617

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶618

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶619

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶620

The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520 004.

¶621

...Respondents/Respondents

¶622

¶623

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶624

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I

¶625

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI,

¶626

SC for APTRANSCO

¶627

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO,

¶628

SCforAPEPDCL

¶629

WRIT PETITION NO: 9982 OF 2023

¶630

Between:

¶631

Sode Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o Sode Balaramayya, Aged about 60 years, RZo D.No.20808, Mulapeta, Near Sanskrit College, Dargamitta, Nellore.

¶632

...Petitioner

¶633

AND

¶634

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rept. By Its Principal Secretary, Finance Department Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.

¶635

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Principal Secretary, Energy Department Government of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶636

the State of Andhra Pradesh, The Principal Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶637

4. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520 004.

¶638

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.

¶639

6. The Chief General Manger (HRD), APSPDCL, Corporate Office,

¶640

Srinivasapuram, Behind Srinivasa Kalyn Mandapam, Tirupati, Tirupati. District, Andhra Pradesh

¶641

...Respondents

¶642

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.

¶643

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶644

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. .

¶645

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA

¶646

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - I

¶647

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO Counsel for the Respondents 5 & 6: SRI V.R.REDDY KOVVURI,

¶648

SCforAPSPDCL

¶649

WRIT PETITION NO: 10110 OF 2023

¶650

Between:

¶651

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.

¶652

...Petitioner

¶653

AND

¶654

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶655

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Energy Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶656

The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶657

4. The AP TRANSCO, Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Victyu.Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh 520 004.

¶658

The AP GENCO, Rep. by its Chairman AND Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520 004.

¶659

The Chief General Manager (Adm, ISAND ERP), AP GENCO, Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520 004.

¶660

The Rayalaseema Thermal Power Project, Rep. by its Chief Engineer (OAND M), V.V.Reddy Nagar, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶661

...Respondents

¶662

¶663

¶664

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,

¶665

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶666

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.

¶667

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PEETA RAMAN

¶668

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1

¶669

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶670

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI M.VIDYASAGAR, SC for APGENCO

¶671

WRIT PETITION NO: 10136 OF 2023

¶672

Between:

¶673

-Muthyam Venu Gopala Krishna, S/o, Surya Narayana Murthy , aged 60 years, Foreman-1 (ID.No 1017533), D.E. General- stage II. Dr. Naria Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456

¶674

Kota Nageswara Rao, S/o Bapanna Pantulu, aged 61 years, Jr Accounts Officer (JAO, ID.No.1071488), O/o Sr. Accounts Officer-ll (OandM), Dr. Naria

¶675

Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, Ibrahimpatnam521456, NTR Dt.

¶676

Garimella Venkateswara Rao, S/o Tataiah, aged 61 years, Foreman-I (ID.No.1017369), EE/Civll-lll, Dr. NarlaTatarao, Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶677

Shaik Sydulu, S/o Vannuru Saheb, aged 61 years, Foreman-IV (ID.No.1018553), EandM MRT Stage-1, Dr. NarlaTatarao, Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶678

Battu Babu Rao, S/o Gangaiah, aged 61 years, Foreman-IV (ID.No.1019058), DCS Hospital, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶679

Ch Kasi Viswanadha Sarma, S/o Suryanarayana, aged 61 years, J.A.O (ID.No.1018847), Accounts Division(SAO-l), Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶680

K V Subramanyeswara Rao, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, aged 61 years, Foreman-ll (ID.No.1018684),EE/CAM Stage-ll, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶681

Nalla Venkateswara Rao, S/o Pedda Subba Rao, aged 61 years, Foreman-1 (ID.No.1017519), T.M. Stage-ll, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶682

Thota Subramaneshwara Rao, S/o Gopala Rao, aged 61 years. Plant Attendant (ID.No.1018298), T.M. Stage-Ill, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶683

Madaka Satyam, S/o Ramulu, aged 61 years, Jr. Plant Attendant (ID.No. 1018997), Civil Division-Ill, Dr. NarlaTatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶684

Malleswarapu Veerabhadra Rao, S/o Veeranna, aged 61 years, Foreman-Il (ID.No. 1018098), T.M. Stage-Ill, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶685

Nukala Lima Maheswara Rao, S/o Panakala Swamy, aged 61 years, Foreman-1 (ID,No.1018078), EE/Civil/Power House, Dr. NarlaTatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶686

13.1 Nagu, W/o Lakshmana Rao, aged 61 years, Jr. Plant Attendant (ID.No.1018136), T.M. Stage-Ill, Dr. NarlaTatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶687

P Venkata Swamy, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, aged 61 years, Male Nursing Orderly (ID.No.1071550), D.C.S. Hospital, Dr.Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶688

Telu Appala Naidu, S/o Bagi Naidu, aged 61 years. Plant Attendant (ID.No.1017436), Ash Pump house. Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶689

Pallakona Sudheer Babu, S/o Moses, aged 61 years, Foreman-1 (ID.No. 1016583), EE/EandM Stage-ll, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnann-521456.

¶690

Md. Abdul Nabi, S/o Abdul Sattar, aged 61 years, Foreman-1 (ID.No.1017800), EE/CHP Opp Stage-landll, Dr.Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶691

P Chiranjeevulu, S/o Jogulu, aged 61 years, (Foreman-I), EOT Operator (ID.No. 1071697), TM Stage-Ill, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶692

Movva Dayasankara Babu, S/o Bala Sundaram, aged 61 years, Asst Engineer (Electrical) (ID.No. 1018366), DE General Stage -III, Dr. NarlaTatarao,Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, Ibrahimpatnam521456.

¶693

K Srinivasa Rao, S/o Subramanyam, aged 61 years. Asst Engineer (MecI) (ID.No.1017361), D.E. General Stage-Ill, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station. (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶694

Bethapudi Kantha Rao, S/o Nathaniel, aged 61 years, Foreman-1 (ID.No.1018431), C.H.P. Stage- III and IV, Dr. NarlaTatarao Thermal Power Station. (NTTPS). APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶695

Ch. Reddamma, S/o Chinnabbai, aged 61 years, Foreman-1 (1D.No.1018339), FMandCC, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶696

R V J Mohana Rao, S/o Sambasiva Rao, aged 61 years, Foreman-IV (ID.NoJ018220), F.M. and C.C., -Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶697

Chintada Tulasi Das, S/o Pattu Swamy, aged 61 years. Foreman Gr.l (ID.No;1017862), I.T. Division, Dr.NarlaTatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶698

Varanasi Gouri Prasad, S/o Ganeshwara Rao, aged 61 years, Foreman-1 (ID.No.1017619), General Stage-1, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶699

Dhanekula Venkateswara Rao, S/o'Ramalingaiah, aged 61 years, Foreman-1 (ID.No.1017643), DE-GENRAL- Stage 1, Dr.Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station. (NTTPS), APGENCO. lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶700

27.Sk. Jani S/o Addam Saheb, aged 61 years, Foreman-1 {ID;No.1018589), T.M. Stage-1, Dr. Narla Tatarao Therrhal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶701

Koganti Venkateswara Rao, S/o Seetaramaiah, aged 61 years, Foreman-1 (ID.No.1017856), Telecom I.T. Division, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station. (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶702

N Prabhu Das, S/o Talpulaiah, aged 61 years. Plant Attendant (ID.No.1018945), Civil Division-1, Dr. NarlaTatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶703

Vaddi Samba Murthy, S/o Reddy, aged 61 years, Foreman-IV (ID.No.1018634), W.T.P. Stage-ll, Dr. NarlaTatarao Thermal Power Station(NTTPS), APGENCO. lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶704

G Santosh Rao, S/o Chinna Narayana Murthy, aged 61 years. Foreman Gr.lV (ID.No.1017485), C.H.P. Stage I and II, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station. (NTTPS), APGENCO. lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶705

Ch Venkata Rao, S/o Rama Swamy, aged 61 years. Foreman-! (ID.No.1017738), BM Stage-ll, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO. lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶706

G Venkata Durga Lokeshwara Rao, S/o Kanaka Rao, aged 61 years, Foreman-IV (ID.No.1016889), W.T.P., Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶707

P SImhachalam, S/o, Apparao, aged 61 years, MCP Drlver(FM-l) (ID.No 1618587). D.E. General- stage-IV, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, (NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456

¶708

.ciS

¶709

35.V Lakshmana Rao, S/o Sriramulu, aged 61 years, Foreman-1 (ID.No.1018012), C.A.M. Stage-Ill, Dr. Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station,

¶710

(NTTPS), APGENCO, lbrahimpatnam-521456.

¶711

...Petitioners

¶712

AND

¶713

The State of Andhra Pradesh, through its PrI. Secretary, General Administration Dept, Velagapudi (V), Amaravathi, Guntur Dt.

¶714

The State of Andhra Pradesh, through its PrI. Secretary, Energy Dept,

¶715

Velagapudi (V), Amaravathi, Guntur Dt,

¶716

The State of Andhra Pradesh, through its PrI. Secretary, Finance Dept, Velagapudi (V), Amaravathi, Guntur Dt.

¶717

Andhra Pradesh Generation Corporation Ltd, (APGENCO), rep by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyuthsoudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada-

¶718

¶719

The Director (HR), APGENCO, Vidyut Soudha Gunadala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

¶720

Dr. Narla Tattarao Thermal Power Station (NTTPS), rep by its Chief Engineer (O and M), lbrahimpatnam-521456

¶721

...Respondents

¶722

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.

¶723

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶724

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.

¶725

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶726

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.

¶727

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KARUMANCHIINDRANEEL BABU

¶728

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1

¶729

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI,

¶730

SC for APTRANSCO

¶731

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI M.VIDYASAGAR, SC for APGENCO

¶732

WRIT PETITION NO: 10418 OF 2023

¶733

Between:

¶734

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.

¶735

...Petitioner

¶736

AND

¶737

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Finance Department, A.P. Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶738

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Energy Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶739

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary General Administration Department A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District.

¶740

The A.P. TRANSCO, Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director Vidyut Soudha, Gunadala, Vijayawada NTR District, Andhra Pradesh..

¶741

The Central Power Distribution Corporation of AP Ltd., Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director Corporate Office, Vijayawada, NTR District Andhra Pradesh.

¶742

The Chief General Manager (HRD) APCPDCL, Vijayawada, NTR District Andhra Pradesh

¶743

The Executive Engineer, Operation Division, APCPDCL, Markapur Division, Markapur, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh

¶744

...Respondents

¶745

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

¶746

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.

¶747

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶748

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.

¶749

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

¶750

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES -1

¶751

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI, SC for APTRANSCO

¶752

Counsel for the Respondents 5 to 7: SRI V.R.REDDY KOVVURI,

¶753

SCforAPCPDCL

¶754

The Court made the following: common order

¶755

¶756

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶757

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

¶758

COMMON^ ORDER:

¶759

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.

¶760

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.

¶761

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

¶762

¶763

VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶764

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.

¶765

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

¶766

superannuation.

¶767

3 VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch.

¶768

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.

¶769

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.

¶770

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

¶771

i ... .
j
•J
J
1 i
I • •
I

¶772

¶773

VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶774

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.

¶775

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.

¶776

¶777

VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶778

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

¶779

G.O.Ms.No. 102 is as follows:

¶780

“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:

¶781

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.

¶782

While doing so, these institutions shall take into consideration their financial position and genuineness of their . need to enhance the age of superannuation.

¶783

In case of Residential Education Societies/ the decision should be based on the genuineness of their need and assessment of performance of these societies.”

¶784

¶785

VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶786

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.

¶787

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

¶788

¶789

VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶790

are not entitled to continue in service beyond 60 years and

¶791

requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶792

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.

¶793

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

¶794

¶795

VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶796

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.

¶797

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.

¶798

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Corporations submits that, in “The Managing Director, vs.

¶799

I III II I

¶800

¶801

VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶802

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

¶803

herein.

¶804

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.

¶805

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

¶806

W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch, dated 05,05.2023

¶807

¶808

VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶809

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.

¶810

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

¶811

employee except the following:

¶812

1.1

¶813

VS,J . Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶814

i) persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State;

¶815

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.

¶816

In “The Managing Director vs. C.Chandrasekhar Reddy

¶817

(referred supra)” wherein it is held as follows: -

¶818

“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

¶819

¶820

VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶821

undertakings claim the right to continue in service upto the enhanced age ofsuperannuation of60 years.

¶822

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.

¶823

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.

¶824

XXX

¶825

XXX

¶826

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

¶827

lui- II n

¶828

¶829

VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶830

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."

¶831

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."

¶832

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.-.

¶833

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."

¶834

¶835

VS,J . Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶836

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

¶837

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

¶838

• • •;

¶839

15 • VS,J Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶840

I V

¶841

nature, as there is no right to the writ petitioners to seek the relief.

¶842

The Government issued clarification vide Cir. Memo.No. 1813129/ FINO 1 -HR/212/2022-HR-IV. dated

¶843

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.

¶844

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.

¶845

¶846

VS J Wps.5840_2023 and batch

¶847

In view of the dismissal of the main writ petitions, the interim order, if any, passed in the writ petitions shall stand

¶848

vacated.

¶849

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶850

these writ petitions shall stand closed

¶851

//TRUE COPY//

¶852

Sd/- P.VENKATA RAMANA JOIN1\REGIS;^AR SECTli OFFICER

¶853

To,

¶854

One CC to Smt Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate [OPUC]
2. One CC to Sri Karumanchi Indraneel Babu, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri Peeta Raman. Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC.to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma. Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to Sri Umasankar Lokanadham, Advocate [OPUC]
6. One CC to Sri P.Ravikanth, Advocate [OPUC]
7. One CC to Sri Rarhbabu Koppineedi. Advocate [OPUC]
8. One CC to Sri N.Harinath, Deputy Solicitor General of India [OPUC]
9. One CC to Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri. SC for APSPDCL [OPUC]
10. One CC to Sri Metta Chandra Sekhara Rao. SC for APEPDCL [OPUC]
11. One CC to Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, SC for APTRANSCO [OPUC]
12.One CC to Sri M.Vidyasagar. SC for APGENCO [OPUC]
13. Two CCs to GP for Services -1, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
14. Two CCs to GP for Services - II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
15. Two CCs to GP for Finance & Planning, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
16. Two CCs to GP for General Administration, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
[OUT]
17. TWO CCs to GP for Energy, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
I S. Two CD Copies
RAM

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

¶859

<2?

¶860

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

N Gangadhar v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Gangadhar v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

K Srinivasulu Vs The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam

N Gangadhar Vs the State of Ap

K T Phanindra Charya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Asifa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B Anitha Kumari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Chappidi Mounica Vs the State of Ap