Disposed

K.S.V.V.N.T. Lakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Dec 2024WP/1711/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by a retired lecturer challenging her non-continuation in service at the age of 60 in an unaided private polytechnic. Relying on a prior order and the petitioner's retirement, the Court directed the authorities to consider a representation for payment of outstanding salary.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to submit a representation for payment of salary, which respondents will consider within three months.

K.S.V.V.N.T. Lakshmi, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMB^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA^

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1711 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

K.S.V.V.N.T. Lakshmi, W/o Late V.Krishna Rao, Aged about 57 years, R/o. M 14, 64, APHB Colony, Palakollu, West Godavari District.^A.P.

¶8

...PETITIONER^'

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary,^Education Department, Secretariat buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad,^T.S.

¶11

The Commissioner, State Board of Technical Education & Training, 6th floor, B.R.K.Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶12

All India Council for Technical Education, (A Statutory Body of the Govt, of India) Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, I.P.Estate,^NewDelhi-2.

¶13

M.R.K.Polytechnic, Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, V.Satyanarayana, S/o Adinarayana, Hindu, aged: 61 years, Veeravasaram, West Godavari District,A.P.

¶14

The Principal, M.R.K. Polytechnic, Veeravasaram, West Godavari District, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction^{moreparticularly} one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents in not continuing the Petitioner in service as Lecturer in

¶15

English till the age of superannuation i.e., 65 years in the 4th Respondent Institution, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, discrimination un-constitutional r-iagainst to the provisions of All India council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service conditions and qualifications for the Teachers and other academic staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulations 2010 and A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation)(Amendment) Act, 2014 i.e.. Act 4 of 2014 and the Andhra Pradesh Education (Amendment) Act, 2014 i.e.. Act 1 of 2015 and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 19 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner in service as Lecturer in English in 4th Respondent Institution till her superannuation i.e., 65 years of age.

¶16

(Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 21.11.2024 vide I.A.No.1 of 2017 (W.P.M.P. No.11515 of 2017) in WP No.1711 of 2016.) I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 2158 OF 2nifi) 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 especially 4 & 5 Respondents to continue the Petitioner in service as Lecturer in English in the 4th Respondent Institution, till she attains the age of superannuation i.e., 65 years of age as per ‘All India council for Technical Education (Pay Scales,' Service conditions and qualifications for the Teachers and other academic staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulations 2010’ pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶17

(Interim Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 21.11.2024 vide I.A.No.1 of 2017 (W.P.M.P. No.11515 of 2017) in W.P.M.P. No.2158 of 2016 in WP No.1711 of 2016.)

¶18

¶19

I.A. NO: 6 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 50371 OF 2016)

¶20

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 4 and 5 to forthwith pay the salaries payable to the petitioner and continue to pay every month pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶21

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 3819 OF 2016)

¶22

Between:

¶23

M.R.K.Polytechnic, Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, V.Satyanarayana, S/o Adinarayana, Hindu, aged: 61 years, Veeravasaram, West Godavari District,A.P.

¶24

The Principal, M.R.K. Polytechnic, Veeravasaram, West Godavari District, A. P.

¶25

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS. 4 & 5

¶26

AND

¶27

K.S.V.V.N.T. Lakshmi, W/o Late V.Krishna Rao, Aged^about57 years. R/o. M 14, 64, APHB Colony, Palakollu, West Godavari District. A.P. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶28

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶29

The Commissioner, State Board of Technical Education & Training, 6th floor, B.R.K.Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶30

All India Council for Technical Education, (A Statutory Body of the Govt, of India) Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, I.P.Estate, New Delhi^- 2.

¶31

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3

¶32

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 granted in WP No. 1711 of 2016 dt: 29-01-2016.

¶33

¶34

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BHANU PRIYA G

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 5: -—

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

¶40

APHC010872582016

¶41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶42

[3333]

¶43

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶44

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶45

PRESENT

¶46

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶47

WRIT PETITION NO: 1711/2016

Between:

K.S.V.V.N.T. Lakshmi

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶53

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶55

1.BHANU PRIYA G

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶57

1.GP FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION (AP)

¶58

2.P DURGA PRASAD

¶59

3.TURAGA SAI SURYA

¶60

The Court made the following:

ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶65

seeking the following relief:-

¶66

"....to issue an appropriate writ, order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not continuing the petitioner’s service till his superannuation i.e., 60 years of age in 4*'^ respondent institution as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, discrimination, un constitutional, against to the provisions of A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Amendment) Act, 2014 I.e., Act 4 of 2014 and the Andhra Pradesh Education (Amendment) Act, 2014 i.e.. Act 1 of 2015 and in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 19 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service in 4’^ respondent institution till her superannuation i. e., 60 years of age... ”

¶67

On 20.01.2016, this Court has granted an interim direction to continue the petitioner in service beyond 31.01.2016 for a period of four (4) weeks.

¶68

Subsequently, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2017 (W.P.M.P.No.11515 of 2017) seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition and the said application was allowed on 21.11.2024. The amended prayer in the writ petition reads as under:

¶69

“....to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in not continuing the Petitioner in service as Lecturer in English till the age of superannuation i.e., 65 years in the 4^^ Respondent Institution, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, discrimination, un-constitutional, against to the provisions of All India council for Technical Education (Pay Scales,^{Serviceconditions} and qualifications for the Teachers and other academic staff in Technicai Institutions (Diploma) Regulations 2010 and A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014 i.e.. Act 4 of 2014 and the Andhra Pradesh Education (Amendment) Act, 2014 i.e.. Act 1 of 2015 and in vioiation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 19 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner in service as Lecturer in English in 4'^ Respondent Institution till her superannuation i.e., 65 years of age ...”

¶70

¶71

It is contended by the petitioner that she was working^{asaLecturerin} English in the 4'*^ respondent college having been appointed in the year 1983. As per AlCTE regulations the age of superannuation^{oftheteachingstaff} working in unaided private polytechnic colleges has^{beenextendedupto65} years and hence she is entitled to continue in service^{uptotheageof65} years.

¶72

It is brought to the notice of this Court that in pursuance^oftheinterim order granted by this Court the petitioner continued^{inservicetillsheattained} the age of 60 years i.e. 31.01.2018. However, it is^{contendedthatshewasnot} paid salary for the period from 01.02.2016 to 31.01.2018.

¶73

It is to be noted that the issue of applicability of enhanced age of superannuation to the lecturers working in the very same 4*^ respondent college has been considered by this Court in W.P.No.19447^{of2016.Thesaid} writ petition was allowed vide order dated 19.07.2022. The^{operativeportionof} the said order reads as under:

¶74

“Accordingly the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents^to continue the petitioners in service in 4"’ respondent institution till superannuation i.e. 65 years of age, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶75

The said order was challenged in W.A.No.404 of 2023 by the college and the Division Bench of this Court having held that there is no illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge, has dismissed the writ appeal vide Judgment dated 16.10.2023.

■*TT

In view of the above facts and circumstances and the order passed in r W.P.No.19447 of 2016 in similar set of facts and circumstances,^whichwas confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench of this Court^{andsinceadmittedly} the petitioner has retired from service on 30.01.2018^{onattainingtheageof} 60 years, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose^{ofthewritpetitionwitha} direction to the petitioner to submit a representation to the concerned authorities requesting them to pay salary, if not paid^{sofar,tothepetitioner} from 01.02.2016 to 30.01.2018 during which period the petitioner was continued in service, on submitting such representation, the respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months thereafter.

¶80

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed^{of.Thereshallbe} no order as to costs.

¶81

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Petition shall stand

closed.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶86

SECTTON OFFICER

¶87

To,

¶88

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

¶89

The Commissioner, State Board of Technical Education & Training, 5th Floor, Higher Education Bhavan, A.N.R Towers, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada-521108.

¶90

All India Council for Technical Education, (A Statutory Body of the Govt, of India) Indira Gandhi Sports Complex, I.P. Estate,^NewDelhi-2.

¶91

The Secretary and Correspondent, M.R.K. Polytechnic, V.Satyanarayana, S/o Adinarayana, Hindu, aged: 61 years, Veeravasaram, West Godavari District, A.P.

¶92

¶93

The Principal, M.R.K. Polytechnic, Veeravasaram, West Godavari District, A.P.

¶94

One CC to Sri Bhanu Priya G, Advocate [OPUC]

¶95

Two CCs to GP for Technical Education, High Court^{ofAndhraPradesh.} [OUT]

¶96

One CC to Sri Turaga Sai Surya, Advocate [OPUC]

¶97

One CC to Sri P Durga Prasad, Advocate [OPUC]

¶98

One CC to Sri K Chidambaram, Advocate [OPUC]

¶99

Three CD Copies

^ i <br>

HIGH COURT

DATED:11/12/2024

ORDER

WP.No.1711 of 2016

X 17 FEI 2125
^ . Current Section ^

¶109

DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS

K.S.V.V.N.T. Lakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.V.V.N.T. Lakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.M.Krishna Vs State of Ap

B.Eswara Rao Vs State of Ap

L.Apparao Vs State of Ap

L. Venugopal, S/o. Late L. Dayakar Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

B Chandra Mohan Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,P.Raj,Guntur Dist,& 4

Meesala Venkata Durga Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh