Dismissed

K.Sree Rama Murthy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Sept 2024WP/22342/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition seeking extension of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years under G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 for an NMR employee was dismissed. The Court held that unlike previous orders, the impugned G.O. did not extend the benefit to NMR/Daily Wage employees. As the petitioner fell outside the statutory definition of 'Government employees', he was not entitled to the enhanced age limit.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.Sree Rama Murthy 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

THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER/^^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

“0
O \ u :xj
Jb.

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATJI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 22342 OF^023

¶7

Between;

¶8

K.SR^E RAMA MURTHY, ^/o. Suryanarayana, Aged 60 years, Occ. Work Inspector NMR (MTS), Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, NTR District, Previously Krishna District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, At Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

The Chief Engineer,, Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶13

The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation,, Rep. by its Municipal Commissioner, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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, declaring the action of the respondents not extending the benefit of age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the petitioner as per

¶16

G.O.Ms.No. 15 Finance Department dated 31.01.2022 as highly illegal, arbitrary, discrimination and contrary to orders of this Hon'ble Court apart from violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Work Inspector till attaining the age of ■' 62 years with all consequential benefits.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Work Inspector (NMR) and continue the petitioner up to the age of 62 years.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. T S N SUDHAKAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

APHC010432312023 0)^0 tiy:: 03?^

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶24

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

[3331]

¶26

THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 22342/2023

Between:

K.Sree Rama Murthy

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶35

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶37

1.TS N SUDHAKAR

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶39

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶40

2.K SREEDHARA MURTHY (SC for Municipalities and Municipal Corporation services)

¶41

The Court made the following:

¶42

:ORDER:

¶43

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of^{therespondentsinnot} extending the benefit of the age of superannuation^{from60to62years} in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance Department, dated 31.01.2022, to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶44

Heard Sri T.S.N. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the^{petitioner,SriR.S.} Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for

¶45

Page 2 of 5

¶46

SRS, W.P.No.22342 of2C^

¶47

respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K. Sreedhara Murthy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was appointed as work inspector on NMR basis in the year, 1991, and he completed 32 years of service in respondent No.3-corporation. Petitioner was also extended Minimum Time Scale. He would submit that earlier Government issued G.O.Ms.No.26 Finance (HR.I-pIg. & Policy) Department dated 19.02.2019, extending the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years to the NMRs/Daily Wage/Full time /part time/Contingent employees, who joined before the cut off date i.e. 25.11.1993. The said benefit was extended to the petitioner. He would submit that subsequently, the Government by way of G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, amended the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022 (A.P. Ordinance No.1 of 2022) published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part-N-B Extraordinary, No.1, Amaravati, dated 31.01.2022 and enhanced the age of superannuation of Government employees from 60 to 62 years. He would submit that respondent No.3 ought to have extended the benefit to the petitioner also.

¶49

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services and learned standing counsel, would submit that petitioner being NMR^is not entitled to the benefit as per G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022. They would submit that earlier the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 19.12.2019 extending the benefit of age of superannuation to NMRs/Daily Wage/Full time /part time/Contingent employees, who joined before the cut off date i.e. 25.11.1993. However, in G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 no such arrangement was made and hence, petitioner is not entitled to.

¶50

Learned standing counsel would further submit that petitioner was discharged from service on 31.07.2023.

¶51

SRS,J W.P.No.22342 of 2023

¶52

Page 3 of 5

¶53

¶54

The point for consideration is whether petitioner is^{entitledtoextension} of age from 60 to 62 years, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15^{dated31.01.2022?}

¶55

As seen from the material, there is no dispute that petitioner was appointed as NMR in respondent No.3-corporation in 1991 and has been discharging his duties. While so. Government issued^{G.O.Ms.No.212F&P} dated 22.04.1994 proposing to regularize the services^{ofNMRswhohave} completed five years as on 25.11.1993. As petitioner did not complete five years as on the cut-off date, his services were not regularized.

¶56

The Government, on humanitarian grounds, issued G.O.Ms.No.823 dated 28.11.2008, sanctioning Minimum Time Scale to 206 individuals working as NMRs in Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and the same is being extended from time to time whenever PRC is sanctioned.

¶57

Subsequently, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 19.03.2019 extending the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years^toNMRs/Daily Wage/Full time /part time/Contingent employees, who joined service before the cut of date i.e. 25.11.1993. Since the petitioner joined in 1991, the said benefit was extended to the petitioner.

¶58

Be that as it may, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 amending Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh^{PublicEmployment} (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, whereby the age of superannuation was enhanced from ‘sixty years’ to sixty^twoyears’ to Government employees. The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment^(Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022^{(A.P.Ordinance} No.1 of 2022) came into effect from 31.01.2022. Flowever,^{nothingwasstated} regarding extension of age in the categories of NMRs/Daily^{Wage/Fulltime} /part time/Contingent employees, unlike G.O.Ms.No.26^{dated19.02.2019.} In fact petitioner was discharged from service on 31.07.2023.^The petitioner doesn’t come under the category of employee as per^{Section1(2)oftheAct.}

¶59

Page 4 of 5

¶60

SRS,v W.P,No.22342of2(

¶61

Unless, the government specifically extends the age to the NMR category, the petitioner cannot claim that he v/ould be continued till he attains the age of superannuation of 62 years.

¶62

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, who was appointed as NMR and continued as such, is not entitled^{totheextensionof} age from 60 to 62 years under G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR.IV-FR & LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022.

¶63

There are no merits in the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶64

SOI- A VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER

¶65

To,

¶66

One CC to SRI T S N SUDHAKAR Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES IV, High Court of Andhra^Pradesh [OUT] 3. One CC to K SREEDHAR MURTHY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY^[OUT] 4. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.22342 of 2023

1"
f ■.

WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED

K.Sree Rama Murthy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.Sree Rama Murthy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Rajyalakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gwara Jarinaa Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bandi Madhavi Vs the State of Ap

Sri M. Durga Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Karlapudi Venkata Krishnaiah Vs the State of Ap

Chinta Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh