Writ petition challenging oral direction to retire part-time junior lecturers at 60 years instead of 62 years. Court disposed of petition following W.A.No.770 of 2022, allowing liberty for re-engagement subject to conditions in G.O.Ms.No.15 and G.O.Rt.No.19.
Petition disposed of; liberty reserved for re-engagement subject to conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 16033 OF 2024
Between:
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
-4"
/
/
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 OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the , Respondents in orally directing the petitioners toretirefromtheirservicesas '..'Ai 'i J) Part Time Junior Lecturer in Type Shorthand 86 O.A and 2) Part time Jurrior Lecturer in CSE (HB) who are working at V.V.RGovernmentJunior College, Mylavaram and Government Junior College, Vinukonda respectively, on attaining the age of 60 years from instead of allowing the petitioners to continue till attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 62 years, despite the G.O.Ms.No. 15, Finance (HR.IV-FR 86 LR) Department, Dt.31.01.2022 and the orders passed in WP.No. 10784 of 2023 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners from their respective services beyond 60 years till attaining the age of superannuation at 62 years with ail^ednsequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC pr^iying that in thecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondents to continue the petitioners who are working as 1) Part Time Junior Lecturer in TypeShorthand85O.Aand 2) Part time Junior Lecturer in CSE (HB) at V.V.R GovernmentJunior College, Mylavaram and Government Junior College, Vinukonda respectively, beyond 60 years I.e , till attaining 62 years of age as per the G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR and LR) Department, Dt. 31.01.2022, pending disposal of the writ petition."^
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondents: GP POR EDUCATION The Court made the following: Order
APHC010315122024
[3331]
/
r
0a
THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
IN
TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER FRIDAY ,THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE honourable SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 16033/2024
Between:
Y V Lakshmi Rajyam and another
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh and 5 others Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
...RESPONDENT(S)
1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following ORDER:
Lecturers in V.V.R. 1 and 2, part time Junior The Petitioners Government Junior College, Mylavaram and in Government Junior College, Vinukonda respectively, fited the above writ petitionimpugningtheactionof in service without the respondent in not allowing them orally to continue in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, extending the age of superannuation of 62 years 31.01.2022 as illegal and Finance (HR.IV-FR & LR) Department, dated arbitrary.
Page 2 of 4
Srs,, WP_16033_2024
- Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.S. Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, appearing on behalf of respondents1 to4.
“4) Today the learned Government Pleader has placed before this court a copy of the G.O.Rt.No.19, dated 29.01.2024. whereby in paragraph No.3, the Special Secretary to Government (I/C) has taken note of the interim order and accordingly issued G.O. permitting the concerned authorities to re-engage the services of the academicians who have completed the age of “58 years” provided theyare foundto be physically and mentally fit to continue the duties expected of the post they were holding.
Srs,j WP_16033_2024
¥
Page 3 of 4 subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022. There shall be no order as to costs. 9) This order shall not be construed as creating a right in any contractual employee to demand a direction in the nature of a mandamus to continue them in service upto or beyond the age of “62 years”.
- The issue in the case at hand is squarely covered by the judgment referred to above.
- Given the above, this writ petition is disposed ofintermsofW.A.No.770 of 2022. The Registry is directed to annex a copy of the judgment dated
13.02.2024 in W.A.No.770 of 2022. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall standclosed.
I
SDl- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTF^AR
//TRUE COPY//
SE OFFICER
(Along with Copy of Order dated 13.02.2024 in WA. No. 770 of 2022)
HIGH COURT
SRSJ
DATED:20/09/2024
ORDER
WP.No.16033 of 2024
DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
[ 3463 ]
[Sin the high court of ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
THE HONOURABLE SRUUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 770 OF 2022
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to present this Memorandum of Writ Appeal aggrieved by the orderdt.12- 07-2022 in WP No. 9130 of. 2021 passed by the Honourable Justice DR. K. MANMAD HA RAO on the file of the HighCourt. Between:
AND
...RESPONDENTS
■■ ■>■ y It-
2
■'<:
The Court made the following;
- Heard the learned Governnient Pleader for S.III for the Appellants and the learned Counsel for the pnvate Respondent. 2) The i been issue involved in the instant appeal has already considered by this Bench, while hearing and disposing of W.p. No.21294 of 2023, whereby 4his Bench after hearing the parties in detail was pleased reject the Writ Petition and was also pleased to Perriiit the continuation or reengagement of the employee on similar contractual terms if the employee was found fit enough to continue to discharge duties.
The Writ Petition came to be disposed of as under:
'SJ The persons like the Petitioner, uJhx) have been engaged on contractual basis, in the considered opinion of this Court do not constitute a person who is appointed to public services and posts i in connection with the affairs of the State”. The use of the word appointed” is not without significance. viewaccordanceof the andmatter, i n_ complianceIt implies andthe appointmentlaws/rules, madeIn that i n opinion is misconceived.the Writ Petition, i n our considered
' 3
/
- Today the learned Government Pleader has placed before this Court a copy of the G.O. Rt. No. 19, dated {. 29.01.2024, whereby m paragraph No. 3, the Special Secretary to Government (I/C) has taken note of theinterim order and accordingly issued G.O. permitting the concerned authorities to reengage the services of the academicianswho have completed the age of “58 years” provided theyarefound to be physically and mentally fit to continue the duties expected of the post they were holding.
%
4
- The measure implemented by the Special Secretary to Government (I/C) is a prudent, as It will obliterate redundant and non-productive litigation.
- Accordingly, the Writ Appetd is partly altou,ea. The order of the learned Single Judge is set-aside and liberty is reserved to the Appellants to re-engage the Respondent , if they so desire, and also other similarly situated employees even beyond the age of “60 years” subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O. No. 15, dated;3i;01.2022. There shall be no order as to costs.
5
This order shall not be construed as creating a right in 9) demand a direction in the nature any contractual employee to of a mandamus to continue them in service upto or beyond the age of “62 years”. 10) As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Sm.../..
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners are entitled to continue in service beyond 60 years up to 62 years as per G.O.Ms.No.15.
Whether the oral direction to retire at 60 years is illegal and arbitrary.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A.No.770 of 2022Followed¶48
W.A.No.770 of 2022
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Y V Lakshmi Rajyam
Vuppala Sudha
State of Andhra Pradesh
Commissioner, Board of Intermediate Education
Regional Joint Director, Board of Intermediate Education, Rajamahendravaram
Regional Joint Director, Board of Intermediate Education, Guntur
Subba Reddy Satti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
