Allowed

Atmakuri Narayana v. Andhra Pradesh Housing Board

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2024WP/15859/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A.P. Housing Board work-charged and regular employees challenged retirement at 60 despite the State raising superannuation age to 62 under G.O.Ms.No.15 and the Board's own resolution. The court held Section 16 of the Housing Board Act incorporates State service rules for the time being in force, set aside the retirement memo, and allowed continuance till 62.

What did the court decide?

Memo No.AP Ordinance.01/B6/APHB/2022 dated 27.09.2022 set aside; respondents directed to continue petitioners in service until age 62.

Atmakuri Narayana Vs Andhra Pradesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION Nos.22682 OF 2023. 5320. 6875. 7548. ISoIr AND 15859 OF 2024

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 22682 OF 2023 .

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri D^ S. N Swamy, S/o. D.Satya Murthy, Occ; Work Inspector, AP Housing Board, aged about 60 years, R/o. H.No.3-96/10, Flat No.302, Rupa Residency, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of AP, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, rep. by its Vice -Chairman and Housing Commissioner, O/o. Door No.5-21, Prasadampadu Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

Hnfi^Yn?f Ro ^ H Housing Commissioner, The Andhra Pradesh Prados ^ ^ ^ No.5-21, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada, Andhra

¶14

m Housing Board, rep. by its Executive Engineer (Hg), Visakhapatnam Division, Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 pray that this Hon'ble Court for issuance of an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in issuing the Memo. No.AP/Ordinance/01/B6 APHB/2022 dated 27.09.2022 and further

¶17

action of Respondent No.4 in issuing Lr.No.A1/WC-Esst./ Retirement/EEVSP/2023, dated 10.08.2023 thereby informing the petitioner that he would be retired on attaining the age of Superannuation of 60 years on 31.08.2023, thought the petitioner is entitled to be service upto 62 years i.e., till 31.08.2025, contrary to resolution dated 13.04.2022 passed in 544th (Ordinary) Board meeting of the 2'^'^ Respondent and contrary to Section 16 of the A.P. Housing Board Act, 1956, and not considering the amendment made vide G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR-IV-FR&LR) Department dated 31.01.2022 and AP Ordinance No.14 of 2022 as illegal, arbitrary and without any jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice, violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 and Rules made therein and consequently direct respondents to continue petitioner in service till 62 years.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the service of the petitioner upto age of 62 years, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

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 reinstate the petitioner and permit him to work till he attains the age of superannuation of 62 years, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. BALA MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI Y.V. SRINIVASAN, SCFORAPHB

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO: 5320 OF 2024

¶25

Between:

¶26

Pavani Lakshmi Malya Venkateswara Prasad age 60 years,

¶27

S/o.P.Lakshmi Narasimharao, Occupation Work Inspector, Gr.lll, A.P. Housing Board, Visakhapatnam Division, R/o.Flat No. 107, Galaxy

¶28

Heights, Vinayakudi Gudi Road, Vinayakuni mandiram, Sri Kanakadurga Nagar Colony, Sri Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh-520008.

¶29

Bellapu Saibabu, age 60 years, S/o. B.Seethiah (Late) Occupation Work Inspector, Gr.lll, A.P. Housing Board, Vijayawada Division R/O.H.NO.300SFT, Block No. 12, Flat No. 18, A.P. Housing Board Colony, Bhavani Puram, Vijayawada. PIN-520012.

¶30

...PETITIONERS

¶31

AND

¶32

The State Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Door No.521, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada Rep by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner.

¶33

The Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Door No.521, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

¶34

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government Department of Finance (HR.IV-FR and LR) Government of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati

¶35

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Urban Development^Urban Housing Government of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati. ^ ’

¶36

...RESPONDENTS

¶37

¶38

employees working in 2'"'^ respondent Corporation in terms of G.O.Ms No. 15 dated 31.01.2022 issued by the 1®‘ respondent, the subsequent Memo. No. AP Ordinance 01/66/APHB/2022 dated 27-09-2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 and the clarification given by Respondent No.3 vide Or. Memo. NO.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23-09- 2022 which starts with a non obstante clause which doesn’t synchronize with G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated 31-01-2022 or the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 dated 31-01-2022, an ordinance which was issued to amend the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as arbitrary, self-contradictory and is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years on par with the Government employees in terms of G.O.Ms No. 15 dt 31.01.2022 issued by the 1®‘ respondent.

¶39

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶40

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Memo. No. AP Ordinance 01/B6/APHB/2022 dated 27-09-2022 and Or. Memo. NO.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-I V dated 23-09-2022 by directing the Respondent to continue the Petitioners in service up to 62 years in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶41

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶42

Between:

¶43

The State Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Door No.521, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada Rep by its Vice Chairman and Housinq Commissioner.

¶44

The Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Door No.521, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

¶45

AND

¶46

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT No.1 & 2

¶47

Pavani Lakshmi Malya Venkateswara Prasad age 60 years,

¶48

S/o.P.Lakshmi Narasimharao, Occupation Work Inspector, Gr.lll, A.P. Housing Board, Visakhapatnam Division, R/o.Flat No. 107, Galaxy Heights, Vinayakudi Gudi Road, Vinayakuni mandiram, Sri Kanakadurga Nagar Colony, Sri Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh-520008.

¶49

Bellapu Saibabu, age 60 years, S/o. B.Seethiah (Late) Occupation Work Inspector, Gr.lll, A.P. Housing Board, Vijayawada Division, R/O.H.NO.300SFT, Block No. 12, Flat No. 18, A.P. Housing^Board Colony, Bhavani Puram, Vijayawada. PIN-520012.

¶50

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶51

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government Department of Finance (HR.IV-FR and LR) Government^of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati

¶52

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Urban Development^Urban Housing Government of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravati.

¶53

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶54

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 29.02.2024, in W.P No 5320 of 2024.

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI P. BALA MURALI KRISHNA

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI Y.V. SRINIVASAN, SCFORAPHB

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶58

WRIT PETITION NO: 6875 OF 2024

¶59

Between:

¶60

Patnala Prasada Rao, Age 60 years, S/o.P.Babu Rao, Occupation Retired Work Inspector Grade III, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Tadepalhgudem Division), R/o. D.No.49-54-13/1/3, Balayya Sastry Layout, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. PIN-530016.

¶61

Gundia Bhaskar, Age 60 years, S/o.G.Bhikshamaiah, Occupation Retired Watchman, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Viiayawada Division), R/o.H.No.8-4-32, UPH Colony, Khanapuram Haveli,

¶62

Khammam (Urban), Collectorate, Khammam, Telangana. PIN-507002.

¶63

Vasa Sai Vara Prasada Rao, Age 60 years, S/o.V.Chandra Shekhar Rao, Occupation Retired Work Charged Work Inspector Grade-ll, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Tadepalligudem Division),^R/o.DNo 1^-1-344/626, Block 6' , Janapriya Apartments, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet Hyderabad, Rangareddi, Telangana. PIN-500035.

¶64

...PETITIONERS

¶65

AND

¶66

Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, DoorNo.521, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada Rep by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner.

¶67

The Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Door No.521, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

¶68

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department Of Finance (HR.IV-FR & LR) Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati ’

¶69

^ State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary^for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Urban Housing Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶70

...RESPONDENTS

¶71

¶72

dated 31.01.2022 issued by the 1®* respondent, the subsequent Memo. No. AP Ordinance 01/B6/APHB/2022 dated 27-09-2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 and the clarification given by Respondent No.3 vide Cir. Memo. NO.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23-09-2022 which starts with a non obstante clause which doesn't synchronize with G.O.Ms. No.15 dated 31-01-2022 or the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 dated 31-01-2022, an ordinance which was issued to amend the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as arbitrary, self-contradictory and is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years on par with the Government employees in terms of G.O.Ms No. 15 dt 31.01.2022 issued by the 1st respondent, without any break in service, with full back wages and with ail consequential benefits.

¶73

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶74

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Memo. No. AP Ordinance 01/B6/APHB/2022 dated 27-09-2022 and Or. Memo. No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-I V dated 23-09-2022 by directing the Respondent to continue the Petitioners in service up to 62 years in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶75

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI P. BALA MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI Y.V. SRINIVASAN, SC FOR APHB

¶76

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶77

WRIT PETITION NO: 7548 OF 2024

¶78

Between:

¶79

Presingu Khadar Mastan, age 59 years, S/o.Presingu Parasu Ramudu, Occupation. Work Inspector, Gr.ll-Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Visakhapatnam Division presently on deputation with Andhra Pradesh Medical Services and Infrastructure Development Corporation (APMSIDC) Flat No.201, Varija Enclave, MSN Colony, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh PIN535002.

¶80

...PETITIONER

¶81

AND

¶82

Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Door No.521, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada Rep by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner.

¶83

The Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Door No.521, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

¶84

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Finance (HR.IV-FR and LR) Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati

¶85

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Urban Housing, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶86

The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Medical Services and Infrastructure Development Corporation (APMSIDC), Mangalagiri Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶87

...RESPONDENTS

¶88

¶89

Memo. NO.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23-09-2022 which starts with a non obstante clause which doesn't synchronize with G.O.Ms. No.15 dated 31-01-2022 or the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 dated 31-01-2022, an ordinance which was issued to amend the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act 1984 as arbitrary, self-contradictory and is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and consequently^directthe respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years on par with the Government employees in terms of G.O.Ms No. 15 dt 31.01.2022 issued by the 1®‘ respondent, without any break in service, with full back wages, all allowances and with all consequential benefits.

¶90

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶91

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Memo. No. AP Ordinance 01/B6/APHB/2022 dated 27-09-2022 and Cir. Memo. No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR- IV dated 23-09-2022 by directing the Respondent to continue the Petitioners in service up to 62 years in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶92

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶93

Between:

¶94

Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, DoorNo.521, Prasadampadu Vijayawada Rep by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner.

¶95

The Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Door No.521, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

¶96

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT No.1 & 2 AND

¶97

^ ' oSunffinn^^Af S/o.Presingu Parasu Ramudu, Occupation. Work Inspector, Gr.ll-Andhra Pradesh Housing Board,

¶98

Visakhapatnam Division presently on deputation with Andhra Pradesh Medical Services and Infrastructure Development Corporation (APMSIDC) Flat No.201, Varija Enclave, MSN Colony, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh. PIN-535002.

¶99

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶100

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Finance (HR.IV-FR and LR) Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶101

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Urban Flousing, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶102

The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Medical Services and Infrastructure Development Corporation (APMSIDC), Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶103

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶104

¶105

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. BALA MURALI KRISHNA

¶106

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI Y.V. SRINIVASAN, SC FOR APHB

¶107

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR SERVICES IV Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI CH. VENKAT REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 13018 OF 2024

¶108

Between:

¶109

Bodaballa Suryanarayana, age 60 Years, S/o.B.Sanyasulu (Late), Occupation Work Inspector Gr.lV-Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Vijayawada Division. R/o.H.No.300, Block No.12 Plot No 18 pIn 520012^ Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, Andhra^Pradesh’

¶110

...PETITIONER

¶111

AND

¶112

Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Door No.521, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada Rep by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner.

¶113

The Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Door No.521, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

¶114

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department Of Finance (HR.IV-FR and LR) Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati

¶115

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Urban Housing, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶116

...RESPONDENTS

¶117

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 the one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of respondents in enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years for the employees working in 2nd respondent organisation in terms of G.O.Ms No. 15 dated 31.01.2022 issued by the 1st respondent, the subsequent Memo. No. AP Ordinance 01/B6/APHB/2022 dated 27-09-2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 and the clarification given by Respondent No.3 vide Cir. Memo. NO.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23-09-2022 which starts with a non obstante clause which doesn't synchronize with G.O.Ms. No.15 dated 31-01-2022 or the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 dated 31-01-2022 an ordinance which was issued to amend the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as arbitrary, self contradictory and is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years on par with the Government employees in terms of G.O.Ms No.15 dt 31.01.2022 issued by the 1 respondent, without any

¶118

break in service, with full back wages, all allowances and with all consequential benefits.

¶119

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶120

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Memo. No. AP Ordinance 01/B6/APHB/2022 dated 27-09-2022 and Cir. Memo. NO.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR- IV dated 23-09-2022 by directing the Respondent to continue the Petitioner in service up to 62 years in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶121

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. BALA MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI Y.V. SRINIVASAN, SC FOR APHB

¶122

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR SERVICES IV WRIT PETITION NO: 15859 OF 2024 Between:

¶123

vlSrhm S/o.Atmakuri Kotaiah, Occupation R/?S? MIG 84/2 ^ Vijayawada Division. Housing Board Colony, Bhavanipuram

¶124

Kamakotinagar, Vijayawada (Urban), Andhra Pradesh. PIN-520012. W'oJk'^rhpmfH’ 2/p U Sreemannarayana, Occupation Inspector, Grade-ll, Andhra Pradesh Housing

¶125

Board, Tadepalligudem Division. R/o. 11-3-34/IE, Chenchupet Kailash Bhavan Road, Tenali, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522202.

¶126

...PETITIONERS AND

¶127

Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Door No.521, Prasadampadu Vijayawada Rep by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner.

¶128

^ Housing Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Door No.521, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

¶129

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Finance (HR.IV-FR & LR) Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati. ’

¶130

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Urban Housing Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶131

...RESPONDENTS

¶132

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 the one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of respondents in enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years for the employees working in 2"^^ respondent organisation in terms of G.O.Ms No. 15 dated 31.01.2022 issued by the 1®‘ respondent, the subsequent Memo. No. AP Ordinance 01/B6/APHB/2022 dated 27-09-2022 issued by the Respondent No.2 and the clarification given by Respondent No.3 vide Cir. Memo. NO.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23-09-2022 which starts with a non obstante clause which doesn't synchronize with G.O.Ms. No.15 dated 31-01-2022 or the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No.1 of 2022 dated 31-01-2022, an ordinance which was issued to amend the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as arbitrary, self contradictory and is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years on par with the Government employees in terms of G.O.Ms No. 15 dt 31.01.2022 issued by the 1®‘ respondent, without any break in service, with full back wages, all allowances and with all consequential benefits.

¶133

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶134

¶135

dated 27-09-2022 and Cir. Memo. No. 1813129/FIN01 -HR/212/2022-H R-IV dated 23-09-2022 by directing the Respondent to continue the Petitioner in service up to 62 years in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶136

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI P. BALA MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI Y.V. SRINIVASAN, SCFORAPHB

¶137

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶138

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶140

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶141

WRIT PETITION Nos.22682 of 2023 and 5320. 6875. 7548. 13018 & 15859 of 2024

¶142

WRIT PETITION No.22682 of 2023

Between:

D.S.N.Swamy

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

¶147

... Petitioners. ... Respondents.

¶148

WRIT PETITION No.532Q of 2024 Between:

¶149

S.JAYALAKSHMI AND OTHERS

¶150

... Petitioners. AND OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ... Respondents. No.6875 of 209d THIRUMALASETTY MADHAVI OTHERS ... Petitioners. AND

¶151

AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

¶152

WRIT PETITION No.6875 of 209d Between:

¶153

SMT. THIRUMALASETTY MADHAVI OTHERS

¶154

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PfRADESH AND OTHERS

¶155

... Respondents.

¶156

Page 2 of 25 SRSJ WPNo.22682 of 2023 & batch WRIT PETITION No.7548 of ?09A Between; ABDUL HAFIZ ... Petitioners. AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ... Respondents. WRIT PETITION No.13Q18 nf 9()9d Between; T SIVAIAH ... Petitioners. AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ... Respondents. WRIT PETITION No.15859 of 2074 Between; PARIMI HANUMANTHA RAO ... Petitioners. AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ... Respondents. Counsel for the petitioners : Sri P.Bala Murali Krishna Counsel for respondents ; Sri Y.V.Srinivasan, Standing Counsel

¶157

Page 3 of 25 SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶158

COMMON ORDER

¶159

Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of them through this common order.

¶160

Petitioners, employees of the A.P. Housing Board, filed^these writ petitions to declare the inaction on the part of respondents in enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 issued by 1"‘ respondent; Memo No.AP Ordinance.01/B6/APHB/2022 dated 27.09.2022 issued by 2"^^ respondent and the clarification given by the respondent vide Circular Memo No. 1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.09.2022, as arbitrary, self-contradictory and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and consequently^directthe respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of petitioners from 60 years to 62 years.

¶161

a) Succinctly, the averments in the affidavit, are that the petitioners, employees of the A.P. Housing Board in different categories are due to retirement on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. Government issued G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years. The Board in its 544*^ meeting resolved to extend the age of superannuation to its employees from 60 to 62 years. The 1®' respondent issued Circular Memo No.02/Estt/BM/2022 dated 26.04.2022 with certain conditions.

¶162

b) Be that as it may, the Government issued Circular Memo NO.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.09.2022. Based on

¶163

Page 4 of 25

¶164

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶165

the memo, the 2 nd respondent issued a Memo No.AP Ordinance.01/B6/APHB/2022 dated 27.09.2022 directing all the Executing Engineers to retire the employees of the A.P. Housing Board who are continuing beyond 60 years in the service with immediate effect. Accordingly, all the petitioners are sought to be superannuated. Hence, these writ petitions came to be^filed.

¶166

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents^1and2. It was contended, inter alia, that the Government has taken the policy decision to enhance the age of superannuation of Government servants from 60 years to 62 years and the employees^oftheA.P. Housing Board have no legally enforceable right to seek enhancement. The claim of the petitioners to enhance the age of superannuation by relying upon G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 cannot be extended to the petitioners given the clarification issued by the Government vide Circular Memo No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022HR-IV dated 23.09.2022. The circular memo dated 23.09.2022 issued by the Government binds the A.P. Housing Board. Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 (for short “Act 1956”), gives power to the Government to give directions to the Board and the Board normally should comply with the directions. The issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 & batch and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.

¶167

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Y.V.Srinivasan, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 & 2, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents 3 &^4.

¶168

Page 5 of 25

¶169

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶170

Learned counsel for petitioners while reiterating the^averments in the affidavits, would contend that when the resolution passed by the Board is pending before the Government for consideration. The 2 nd respondent ought not to have issued the Memo dated 27.09.2022 directing the Executive Engineers to retire the employees working beyond 60 years. He would also submit that since the Board already passed a resolution dated 13.04.2022, getting approval from the Government is nominal and the approval from the Government is required when there is chaos of financial problems. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the order of the Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.Nos.26495 and 26926 of 2015 dated 25.08.2024.

¶171

Learned standing counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents 3 & 4 would submit that so far the Government has not taken any decision in pursuance of Board Resolution dated 13.04.2022. Learned standing counsel would submit that a Circular Memo dated 23.09.2022 was issued by the 3 rd respondent clarifying the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 binds the A.P. Housing Board. He would also submit that Section 16 of the Act 1956 will not help the petitioners in getting relief.

¶172

Now, the point for consideration is;

¶173

Are the petitioners entitled to claim benefits under G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department dated 31.01.2022 qua the enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years?

¶174

Page 6 of 25 SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶175

The A.P. Housing Board is a creature of a statute i.e. the A.P. Housing Board Act, 1956. It was incorporated in terms of section 3 of the Act 1956. Section 4 deals with the Constitution of the Board. Section 16 prescribes, the provisions of Services Rules, for the time being in force, in the State, be made applicable unless and otherwise provided in the Act or prescribed thereunder, relating to salaries, leave, pensions, traveling allowance, retirements, and all service conditions etc. shall apply to the Officers and servants of the Board appointed under Section 17. As per section 79 of the Act, the Government may give the Board such directions as in its opinion necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act, after allowing the Board to State its objections, if any, to such directions and after considering the said objections. It shall be the duty of the Board to comply with such directions. The Government also got powers to call for records and examine any case pending before or disposed of by the Board. The A.P. Housing Board is one of the public sector undertakings. As per Schedule IX of the A.P. Reorganisation Act. 2014, A.P. Housing Board is at entry No.14.

¶176

The State of Andhra Pradesh amended the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 by Act 4 of 2022 regarding the age of superannuation. Initially, Ordinance No.1 of 2022 was issued and later the same became Act 4 of 2022 by which, the age of superannuation is enhanced for Government servants. Before the Act was amended in pursuance of the ordinance, G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 was issued. By amendment, Act 4 of 2022, Section 3A of the principal Act was amended and the words “60 years”, is substituted by the words “62 years”.

¶177

Page 7 of 25

¶178

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶179

When the Superannuation Act was amended enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, it became the subject matter of decision in G.Rama Mohan Rao and another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another*. A batch of writ petitions was filed by the employees of different Corporations/Companies/Societies/Institutions, listed in the IX and X Schedule of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014, claiming^thebenefitof extending of age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. The matter was argued sumptuously, and the Division disposed^ofbatch writ petitions. The learned Division Bench considered various intricacies and finally held that since the recommendations are before the Government, the Government is directed to consider the same. Issues (a), (la) and (1b) are relevant for present^discussion.

¶180

(1) ARE EMPLOYEES OF STATE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS GOVERNED BY ACT 23 OF 1984.

¶181

(1A) CAN EMPLOYEES OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS BE SAID TO BE PERSONS APPOINTED TO PUBLIC SERVICES AND POSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE AFFAIRS OF THE STATE.

¶182

(1B) MERELY BECAUSE PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS ARE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE STATE UNDER ARTICLE DOES NOT MAKE ITS EMPLOYEES GOVERNMENT SERVANTS.

¶183

2017 (6) ALD 103 (DB) - 2017 SCC Online Hyd 54

¶184

Page 8 of 25

¶185

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶186

¶187

The Division Bench after considering the respective^submissions made the following observations:

¶188

... It is only if the 1984 and the 2014 State Act^areheld applicable to employees of public sector undertakings,^can it be held that they are entitled to continue in service till they reach the age of superannuation of 60 years. As employees of public sector undertakings are not persons appointed to public services^and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, they are not governed by the provisions of the 1984 Act as amended by the 2014 State Act. While it is open to the Board of Directors/Managing Committees of each of these Corporations/Companies/Societies, in accordance with the provisions of the enactment by which they are governed^andthe Articles of Association/bye-laws which are applicable to them, to adopt the provisions of the 1984 Act and the 2014 State Act, and make them applicable to their employees by amending^theirrules and regulations, it is only thereafter can employees of these undertakings claim the right to continue in service upto the enhanced age of superannuation of 60 years.

¶189

As employees of Public Sector Undertakings and Government servants constitute two different and distinct classes, neither do the conditions of service prescribed for government servants automatically apply to employees of Public Sector Undertakings, nor does the plea of discrimination, or of violation of Article 14, merit acceptance. The contention that the Government cannot apply different yardsticks is therefore not tenable. While several of these corporate bodies appear^tohave adopted the 1984 Act, they are required to also adopt^the2014 State Act, and amend the rules and bye-laws, governing the age of superannuation of its employees, accordingly. It is only if the rules, governing the age of superannuation, are amended as prescribed under the applicable bye-laws/Articles of association would the employees of these corporate bodies then be entitled to claim the benefit of the enhanced age of superannuation.

¶190

The Companies/Corporations/Societies, listed in the IX Schedule to the 2014 Central Act, are distinct legal^entitiesand are neither departments, nor form part, of the State Government.

¶191

Page 9 of 25 SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶192

The Board of Directors/Managing Committees of each of these legal entities govern each of these entities subject only to the provisions of the Companies Act, the Memorandum of^Association and the Articles of Association in so far as Companies/Corporations are concerned, and the bye-laws^and the provisions of the Act whereunder the Societies were constituted in so far as Societies are concerned. The control exercised by the State Government, over such Companies/Societies, is as its shareholder, and in^termsofthe relevant enactments and the Articles of Association of each of these Companies, and the bye-laws of each of these^Societies. Neither the 1984 Act, nor the Rules made by the Government^for its employees under the proviso to Article 309 of the^Constitution of India, automatically apply to these Corporations/Companies/Societies.

¶193

XXX XXX

¶194

The earlier G.Os were issued by the Government of A.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 petitioners are governed, stipulate 58 years as the age of retirement, these employees cannot claim any right^tocontinuein service till they attain the age of 60 years. It is only if the request of these Companies/Corporations/Societies, for amendment of its byelaws/rules and regulations, are approved by the State Government, and the rules/byelaws/regulations are amended thereafter in accordance with law, would their employees^thenbe governed by the enhanced age of superannuation prescribed under the Rules/bye-laws.

¶195

Thus, the Division Bench held that the State Government is obligated to consider the request of corporations/companies/soci^eties separately, based on their financial position, the genuineness of their

¶196

Page 10 of 25 SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch need to enhance the age of superannuation, and then take a decision whether or not their request, qua the enhancement of age of superannuation. 14. Against the Judgment of the Division Bench, the matter was carried to the Apex Court in A.Veerraju and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others^ When the issue was pending^before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.112 Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department dated 18.06.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.102 Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department dated 27.06.2017, enhancing the age of superannuation of employees working in the Institutions included in IX and X schedules subject to certain conditions. In Paragraph-4 of G.O.Ms.No.102, it was stated thus;

¶197

“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 for their employees shall be taken by the Board of Directors/Managing Committees of these legal entities.

¶198

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

¶199

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

¶200

" (2019) 17 see 364 = 2017 See OnLine Se 1063

¶201

Page 11 of 25

¶202

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶203

Given subsequent developments pending the SLPs, the^Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of the appeals by making the following observations;

¶204

'9. In that view of the matter, we do not think it necessary^to retain these appeals in this Court any further. The^standofthe Government is very clear. The Government Order dated 8-82017 permitting the employees to continue up to the age of 60 years has come into effect with effect from 2-6-2014. Therefore, all employees who have superannuated on account of attainment of age of 58 years on 2-6-2014 or thereafter are entitled to the protection of their service up to 60 years of age and naturally to all consequential benefits arising therefrom.

¶205

The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.”

¶206

Thereafter, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 1045-1055 of 2018 was filed by one K.Ananda Rao and others. The issue was elaborately discussed in contempt petitions and eventually, they^wereclosedon 07.03.2019.

¶207

In pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022, employees of the A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation and others filed different writ petitions seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years. Learned single Judge allowed those writ petitions by a common order dated 11.08.2022. Against the said common order in W.P.No.8225 of 2022 & batch dated 11.08.2022, intra-court appeals W.A.Nos.1033 of 2022 & batch were filed. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the said appeals on 05.05.2023 and set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8225 of 2022 & batch dated 11.08.2022. While

¶208

Page 12 of 25 SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶209

setting aside the order of a learned single judge,^{theDivisionBench} placed reliance upon the judgment in G.Rama Mohan Rao case {supra-1). The Division Bench also considered the fact of the merger and eventually allowed intra-court appeals.

¶210

Both the Division Benches considered the language employedⁱⁿ Section 1 (2) of the Act 23 of 1984 and eventually^concluded the employees of the Corporation cannot claim the benefit of extension of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years unless the Corporations/ Societies amend the Rules/Act.

¶211

It is a settled principle of law that the observations made in the judgments by Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of a statute, and that too taken out of their context.

¶212

(Amar Nath Om Prakash Vs. State of Punjab')

¶213

The decision of a Court is only an authority for what^it decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio, and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it.

¶214

(State of Orissa Vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Mistra").

¶215

It is pertinent to mention here that neither in G.Rama Mohan Rao case {supra-1) nor in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch, the employees of the Housing Board are parties. It is an undisputed fact that the A.P. Housing Board is at entry 14, Schedule IX of the A.P.

¶216

"(1985)1 see 345 ''AIR 1968 Se 647

¶217

Page 13 of 25

¶218

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶219

Reorganisation Act 2014. Employees of eighteen corporations in Schedule IX and others filed writ petitions challenging^{theactionofthe} State in not extending the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. As seen from the Paragraph-14 of the order in W.A.No.1033^of 2022 and batch, the appellant therein is APEWIDC. In fact,^APEWIDChas its own service rules.

¶220

As discussed supra, the A.P. Housing Board was constitutedⁱⁿ terms of Section 3 of the A.P. Housing Board Act, 1956.^Section16of the Act deals with service rules of its employees. It is appropriate to extract Section 16 of the Act 1956, which reads thus:

¶221

“16. Application of Service Rules and Certain other rules - Unless otherwise provided in this Act or prescribed thereunder, the provisions of the Service Rules for the time being in force in the State, relating to salaries, leave, pensions, traveling allowance, retirements, and all conditions of service and the rules for the time being in force relating to the conduct of Government servants and inquiries into the conduct and punishment of Government servants, shall apply to the^Officers and servants of the Board appointed under Section 17.”

¶222

(emphasis is mine)

¶223

A careful perusal of the section extracted supra, would^discern that service rules for the time being in force in the State shall apply to officers and servants of the Board appointed under Section 17. The service rules include salaries, leave etc., and also conditions of service.

¶224

In G.Rama Mohan Rao case {supra-^), the Division Bench while placing reliance upon judgments of Apex Court qua conditions of service observed as follows:

¶225

Page 14 of 25

¶226

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶227

The expression “conditions of service" means all^those conditions which regulate the holding of a post by a person right from the time of his appointment till his retirement^and even beyond it, in matters like pension etc. (State of Punjab^Vs. Kailash Nath^ Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel‘: State^of M.P. Vs. Shardul Singh\ I.N.Subba Reddy Vs. Andhra University*). What falls within the purview of the term “conditions of service” may be classified as salary or wages including subsistence allowance during suspension, the periodical Increments, pay scale, leave, provident fund, gratuity, confirmation, promotion, seniority, tenure or termination of service, compulsory or premature retirement, superannuation, pension, changing the age of superannuation, deputation^and disciplinary proceedings. (Kailash Nath’s case supra).^Article 309 confers legislative power to provide conditions of service including prescription of the age of superannuation, (N.Lakshmana Rao Vs. State of Karnataka’ and P.Venugopal Vs. Union of India"*).

¶228

Thus, conditions of service include retirement. During the arguments, when the Court pointed out, on a couple of occasions, regarding the making of service rules of employees of A.P. Housing Board qua the conditions of service, learned standing counsel emphatically submitted that no separate rules were framed so far by the Board. The Board adheres to the Rules framed by^the State Government.

¶229

^ (1989) 1 see 321 ® (1985)3 see 398 ^ (1970) 1 see 108 (1977) 1 see 554 (1976) 2 see 502 10 (2008) 5 see 1

¶230

Page 15 of 25

¶231

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶232

The Phrase ‘for the time being in force’ used in the section be interpreted to refer to the rules which are in force when the event took place. The case at hand, the event took place after the amendment to Act 23 of 1984 enhancing the age of superannuation

¶233

In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Premchand Gupta the Hon’ble Apex Court observed thus;

¶234

“13. In this connection, one submission of learned counsel for the respondent workman may be noted. He submitted that as laid down by Regulation 4(1), the rules for the time being^inforceas mentioned therein would refer to only those rules which were in force when the Service Regulations of 1959 were promulgated and not any latter rules. It is difficult to countenance this submission. Rules for the time being in force will have a nexus with the regulation of condition of service of the municipal officers at the relevant time as expressly mentioned in Regulation 4(1). Therefore, whenever the question of regulation of conditions of service of the municipal officers comes up for consideration,^the relevant rules in force at that time have to be looked into. This is the clear thrust of Regulation 4(1). Its scope and ambit cannot be circumscribed and frozen only to the point of time in the year 1959, when the Service Regulations were promulgated. If such was the intention of the framers of the Regulation, Regulation 4(1) would have employed a different phraseology, namely, “rules at present in force” instead of the phraseology “rules for the time being in force”. The phraseology “rules for the time being in force" would necessarily mean rules in force from time to time and nnt rules in force only at a fixed point of time in 1959 as tried to he suggested by learned counsel for the respondent workman.”

¶235

(2000) 10 see 115

¶236

Page 16 of 25 SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶237

The observation of Division Bench of the Madras High^Courtin J.Parthiban &Ors Vs. State of Tamilnadu & Ors'^ reads thus,

¶238

“....The phraseology "laws for the time being in force" would necessarily mean laws in force from time to time and not laws in force only at a fixed point of time, i.e. the date on which the Airports Authority of India Act was enacted. The expression^"for the time being" denotes time indefinite and refers to indefinite state of facts which will arise in future and which may vary from time to time.”

¶239

The Andhra Pradesh Legislature enacted the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation)^ActNo.23 of 1984 making it applicable to persons appointed to public service and posts and other employees in any Local Authority, Houses^oftheState Legislature etc. To give effect to their policy of reversal, i.e., the policy of reducing the age of superannuation from 58 to 55, the Government amended Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules by substituting the number^'55'forthe number '58'. Thus, by amending the Rules that existed, thus far, qua the age of superannuation, the legislature enacted the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation)^Act1984.

¶240

In the absence of any separate rules framed by the A.P. Housing Board, whatever the Rules/Act exist as of today shall apply to the employees of the Board because of the language employed^inSection 16 of the Act.

¶241

AIR 2008 MADRAS 203

¶242

Page 17 of 25

¶243

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶244

Whether the employees of the Board can claim the status of government servants as per the Act 23 of 1984 is no longer res Integra in view of the judgment in G.Rama Mohan Rao case {supra-^), wherein it was held that the employees covered by the Corporation etc. in Schedule IX and X of the A.P. Reorganisation Act 2014, cannot get the benefit of amendment of Act 23 of 1984. However, as discussed supra, Section 16 of the A.P. Housing Board Act did not fall for consideration before the two Division Benches. A perusal of the judgments of Division Benches, the language akin to^{Section16ofthe} A.P. Housing Board Act was not considered.

¶245

It is pertinent to mention here that another Division Bench of the composite High Court in W.P.No.26495 of 2015 dated 25.08.2015 upheld the order of the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by employees of the Housing Board, regarding the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. The Division Bench observed as follows:

¶246

“A careful perusal of the above provision makes it very clear that unless a provision is otherwise provided in this enactment or any prescription is made under the provisions of the service rules framed thereunder, the provisions of service rules for the time being in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh relating to the retirement, shall apply to the officers and servants of the Housing Board, appointed under Sec 17 of the Housing Board^Act. There is no dispute that the contesting respondents are those who were appointed in accordance with and in terms of sec 17 of the Housing Board Act. Therefore, section 16 of the Act is the result of a telescoping tool, which was used by the legislature. It has literally regulated the field occupied by Section 16 by borrowing the matter of application to the servants of the Housing Board

¶247

Page 18 of 25

¶248

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶249

appointed under Sec 17 of the Housing Board Act, what is prevailing for the time in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In the State of Andhra Pradesh, by Act 4 of 2014, Sec 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1984 has been amended and the amendment was also notified in the official gazette^on27-6-2014. By amending Sec 3, the age of superannuation of every government employee has been raised from 58 years to 60 years. Therefore, it becomes crystal clear that unless a contra provision is made under the Housing Board Act or under the regulations framed thereunder, the age of retirement prescribed for the servants of the State of Andhra Pradesh, which is available for the time being in force, will get applied to the servants of the Housing Board also.

¶250

In our opinion section 16 of the Housing Board Act binds the Housing Board to regulate the age of superannuation of its servants strictly in terms thereof. The learned standing counsel is more than fair in pointing^outthat there is no contra provision made under the Housing^BoardAct or under the regulations framed thereunder, which has the enforceability prescribing the age of superannuation of the servants of the Housing Board. In the absence of this exception carved out by Section 16 of the Housing Board Act, the remaining provisions of the said Section 16 will spring to life”.

¶251

Thus, the Division Bench of the composite High Court specifically dealt with Section 16 of the Housing Board Act, 1956 and concluded that the amendment made to Act 23 of 1984 would apply to the employees of the Housing Board by applying the telescoping toll principle.

¶252

Page 19 of 25

¶253

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶254

If one looks at Section 16 of the Housing Board Act, the section in the Act is by way of Referral or Incorporation of legislation. The aspect of Incorporation and Reference has been dealt with by the author G.P. Singh in the “Principles of Statutory Interpretation^{"12"^} Edition, 2010. Incorporation of an earlier Act into a later Act is a legislative device adopted for the sake of convenience in order to avoid verbatim reproduction of the provisions of the earlier Act into the latter.

¶255

In Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule Vs. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd.'\ the Hon’ble Apex Court^heldthus:

¶256

“When an earlier Act or certain of its provisions are incorporated by reference into a later Act, the provisions so incorporated become part and parcel of the later Act as if they^had been “bodily transposed into it”.

¶257

The effect of incorporation is admirably stated by Lord Esher, M.R.:“|f a subsequent Act brings into itself by reference some^of the clauses of a former Act. the legal effect of that, as has often been held, is to write those sections into the new Act as if they had been actually written in it with the pen, or printed^init.” The result is to constitute the later Act along with the incorporated provisions of the earlier Act, an independent legislation^which is not modified or repealed by a modification or repeal^oftheearlier Act.

¶258

As observed by Brett, J.: “Where a statute is incorporated, by reference, into a second statute, the repeal of the first statute by a third does not affect the second”.

¶259

(2020) 9 see 215 2020 See OnLine Se 431

¶260

Page 20 of 25

¶261

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶262

To the same effect is the statement by Sir George Lowndes: "It seems to be no less logical to hold that where certain provisions from an existing Act have been incorporated into subsequent Act, no addition to the former Act, which is not expressly^made applicable to the subsequent Act, can be deemed to be incorporated in it, at all events if it is possible for the subsequent Act to function, effectually without the addition.

¶263

Ordinarily, if an Act is incorporated in a later Act,^{theintentionis} to incorporate the earlier Act, with all the amendments made in it up to the date of incorporation.

¶264

The rule that the repeal or amendment of the Act which is incorporated by reference in a later Act is not applicable for purposes of the later Act is subject to qualifications and exceptions. Further, a distinction is also drawn when what is referred to is not an earlier Act or any provision from it but law on a subject in general.

¶265

There is, however, no controversy on the point that when any Act or rules are adopted in any later Act or rules, such adoption normally whether by incorporation or mere reference takes in all the amendments in the earlier Act or rules till the date of adoption.”

¶266

In State of Uttarakhand v. Mohan Singh'^ the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus;

¶267

The law is, therefore, clear that a distinction has to be drawn between a mere reference or citation of one statute into

¶268

¶269

(2012) 13 see 281 2012 See OnLine Se 715

¶270

Page 21 of 25

¶271

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶272

another and incorporation. In the case of mere reference of citation, a modification, repeal or re-enactment of the statute that is referred will also have an effect on the statute in which it is referred: but in the latter case any change in the incorporated statute by way of amendment or repeal has no repercussion on the incorporating statute.

¶273

In IBBI V. Court held thus:

¶274

In IBBI V. Satyanarayan Bankatlal Malu'^ the Hon’ble Apex

¶275

This Court has held in Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 3 SCC 1 ; (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 578]^that once a finding is recorded that an Act is a self-contained code, then the application of either of the doctrines i.e. “legislation by reference” or “legislation by incorporation” would lose their significance particularly when the two Acts can co-exist and operate without conflict. This Court further held that, in case of general reference in the Act in question to an earlier Act but there being no specific mention of the provisions of the former Act, then it would clearly be considered as “legislation by reference . In such a case, the amending laws of the former Act would become applicable to the later Act. However, when the provisions of an Act are specifically referred and incorporated in the later statute, then those provisions alone are applicable and the amending provisions of the former Act would not become part of the later Act.

¶276

Thus, given the expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, Incorporation occurs when an earlier statute or specific provisions of it are explicitly brought into a latter statute. The incorporated provisions

¶277

¶278

(2024) 6 SCC 508 2024 SCC Online SC 560

¶279

Page 22 of 25 SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶280

become part of the latter statute as if they had been directly written into it. The legal effect of incorporation is that the earlier provisions are treated as if they are physically inserted into the later statute which means, the incorporated provisions are fully part of^{thenewstatuteand} are independent of any amendments made to the earlier statute after the date of Incorporation.

¶281

In respect of Legislature by Reference, it involves a latter statute mentioning or referring to an earlier statute or its provisions without actually incorporating them. The earlier statute or its provisions are not considered to be part of the latter statute because they are merely cited. In the case of reference, the latter statute relies on the earlier statute as it currently stands or as it may be amended in the future. Any changes to the earlier statute will automatically apply to the referenced provisions in the later statute.

¶282

A perusal of Section 16 of the Housing Board Act, it can be inferred that the Service Rules including conditions of service etc., of the State, for the time being in force are made applicable to employees appointed under Section 17 of the Act. Thus, whatever the amendments made to the Act 23 of 1984 would by reference apply to the employees of the Housing Board.

¶283

The Division Bench in G.Rama Mohan Rao case {supra-^) considered whether the employees of Corporations/Societies in IX and X Schedules are entitled to the benefit of superannuation and eventually negatived claim. However, the employees of A.P. Housing Board or provision akin to Sec 16 of the A.P. Housing^Board fall for consideration before the Division Bench. Before the other Bench in

¶284

Page 23 of 25 SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶285

W.P.Nos.26495 and 26926 of 2015 dated 25.08.2024, Sec 16^ofthe Housing Board fell for consideration.

¶286

Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents would contend that the ratio of law in the judgment in W.P.Nos.26495^of 2015 and 26926 of 2015 and G.Rama Mohan Rao’s case {supra-^) is diametrically opposite and hence the ratio in the latter judgment must be followed. This Court is not persuaded with such submission.

¶287

In Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Shramik Sena'^^the Hon’ble Apex Court took a view that if the High Court^wasfacedwith diametrically opposite interpretation, it should have decided the case on merits and according to its own interpretation of the said judgment.

¶288

Salmond in Book on Jurisprudence, 12'^ Edition termed the conflict rules as Schizophrenic. In Mansing Surajsingh^PadviVs.The State of Maharashtra‘S the Bombay High Court observed that when there are contrary decisions, binding on the High Courts, it has to undertake the unpleasant task of choosing one which appears to have better authority or reason. It was held thus;

¶289

“Where authorities of equal standing are irreconcilably in conflict, a lower court has the same freedom to pick and choose between them as the schizophrenic court itself. The lower court may refuse to follow the later decision on the ground that it was arrived at per incuriam, or it may follow such decision on the ground that it is the latest authority. Which of these two courses the court adopts depends, or should depend, upon its own^view of what the law ought to be.”

¶290

(2001) 7 see 469 2001 See OnLine Se 1064 (1968)70 BOM LR 654

¶291

Page 24 of 25

¶292

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶293

This Court is of the considered opinion that though it was held in G.Rama Mohan Rao’s case (supra-1) that employees of^ScheduleIX and X A.P. Reorganisation Act are not entitled to benefit of amendment to Act 23 of 1984, however, the Division Bench did not specifically consider Section 16 of the A.P. Housing Board Act or any provision akin to Section 16. When the employees of A.P. Housing^Boardarenot parties and Section 16 of the Act was not considered, the ratio laid down in G.Rama Mohan Rao’s case {supra-1) shall not apply to the employees of A.P. Housing Board, whereas the other Division Bench specially considered Section 16 of the Housing Board Act. Thus, this Court intends to take the support of the common order in W.P.No.26495 of 2015.

¶294

Indeed, in the case at hand, the Board in its meeting^heldon 13.04.2022 passed the resolution extending the age of superannuation to its employees, both regular and work charged, from 60 years to 62 years with retrospective effect. Seems the copy of the resolution was forwarded to the Government and the same is pending.

¶295

The Circular Memo No. 1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.09.2022 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to the Government is only a clarification in nature. It only points out that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 would apply to the category of employees mentioned in Section 1(2) of the Act 23 of 1984. The Circular issued aligns with the judgment of G.Rama Mohan Rao s Case {supra-^). Though in the counter affidavit, it was contended that the Circular Memo dated 23.09.2022 binds the Corporation, this Court is not persuaded by said submission.

¶296

Page 25 of 25

¶297

SRSJ WP No.22682 of 2023 & batch

¶298

When any amendment to Act 23 of 1984 is made applicable^to the employees of the A.P. Housing Board, there is no need even to pass a resolution by the Board. Thus, the memo No.AP Ordinance.01/B6/APHB/2012 dated 27.09.2022 issued by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director is liable to be set aside. In fact, the Vice Chairman is one of the members of the Board. He cannot decide contrary to the resolution passed by the Board. Of course, the Government got supervisory powers under Section 79 of the Act. However, given Section 16 of the Housing Board Act,^such supervision qua applicability of provisions of Act 23 of 1984 is not required.

¶299

Given the discussion supra, these Writ Petitions are Allowed.

¶300

1. The Memo No.AP Ordinance.01/B6/APHB/2012 dated 27.09.2022 issued by the Vice Chairman and Managing^Director is set aside.

¶301

1. Because of Section 16 of the A.P. Housing Board Act, 1956 the amendment made to Act 23 of 1984, extending the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years, by reference, applies to its employees.

¶302

1. The respondent Board shall continue the writ petitioners in service till they attain the age of superannuation of 62 years.

¶303

1. No order as to costs.

¶304

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shallstand

¶305

closed.

¶306

//TRUE COPY// SDI- B.PRASAD RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶307

To,

¶308

SECTION OFFICER

¶309

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of AP, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶310

The Vice -Chairman and Housing Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, O/o. Door No.5-21, Prasadampadu, Viiayawada, Andhra Pradesh.

¶311

The Vice -Chairman and Housing Commissioner, The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board O/o. Door No.5-21, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada,^Andhra Pradesh.

¶312

The Executive Engineer (Hg), Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Visakhapatnam Division, Andhra Pradesh.

¶313

The Special Chief Secretary to Government Department^ofFinance (HR.IV-FR & LR) State of Andhra Pradesh, Government of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶314

The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Medical Services and Infrastructure Development Corporation (APMSIDC), Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶315