Dr K Sarjan Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

PROF. S. RATNA KUMARI, D/O S.B.V. PRASADA RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC- PROFESSOR AND UNIVERSITY HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF CROP PHYSIOLOGY, AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

SRI ACHARYA N G RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, LAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not enhancing the petitioner age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.39,

¶18

2

¶19

Higher Education (U.E.) Department dt.29-07-2023 issued by the 1st respondent on par with others who are drawing UGC Scale of pay in the Universities in the state is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher Education (U.E.) Department dt.29-07-2023 of the 1st respondent without reference to her date of retirement i.e. 30-11-2023 with pay and allowances.

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶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 continue the petitioner in service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher Education (I.J.E.) Department dt.29-07-2023 of the lst respondent without reference to her date of retirement i.e. 30-11-2023, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the 2312738/Ser.II/A/2023 dated 31-12-2023 of the 3rd respondent to the extent that the petitioner is not eligible for pay and allowances by directing the respondents to pay the salary and emoluments to the petitioner from the date of stopping the salary and continue the same until the disposed of the writ petition and pass such other order.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶28

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶29

3.S PRANATHI

¶30

3

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 33264/2023

¶32

Between:

¶33

CH V V SATYANARAYANA, S/O CH. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC PROFESSOR AND UNIVERSITY HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD PROCESS ENGINEERING, DR. N.T.R. COLLEGE OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ACHARYA NG RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶34

DR.K.S.S.NAIK, S/O K. BHEEMA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC ASSOCIATE DEAN, AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, ACHARYA NG RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MAHANANDI, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶35

DR. B. JOHN WESLEY, S/O B.YESUDAS, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OCC PROFESSORSS UNIVERSITY HEAD, DEPT. OF RENEWABLE ENERGY ENGINEERING, DR. N.T.R. COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, ACHARYA NG RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶36

DR. S. SARALAMMA, D/O. S.D.CHRISTOPHER, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST AND COORDINATOR, DAATT CENTRE, ACHARYA N.G. RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, NOONEPALLI, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

¶37

.DR. T.S. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO, S/O T.V.RAGHAVULU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC PROFESSOR 85 UNIVERSITY HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY ANATOMY, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SCIENCE, SRI VENKATESWARA VETERINARY UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶38

DR.B.V.K.BHAGAVAN, S/O B. RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST (HORT), HORTICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, DR.Y.S.R. HORTICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, PEDDAPETA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

4

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶43

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶44

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶45

ACHARYA N G RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, LAM FARM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶46

SRI VENKATESWARA VETERINARY UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, YSR BHAVAN, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶47

DR Y S R HORTICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VENKATARAMANNAGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶48

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION, NEELADRI TOWERS, BATTALION ROAD, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶49

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGHER EDUCATION REGULATORY AND MONITORING COMMISSION, 3RD FLOOR, SREE MAHENDRA ENCLAVE, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶50

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶51

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 Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4TH to 6th respondents Universities in not enhancing the petitioners age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher Education (U.E.) Department dt.29-07-2023 issued by the 1st respondent on par with others who are drawing UGC Scale of pay in the Universities in the State is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the

¶52

5

¶53

Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.39 Higher Education (U.E.) Department dt.29-07-2023 of the 1 St respondent without reference to their date of retirement with Pay and Allowances and pass such other order.

¶54

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶55

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.39 Higher Education (U.E.) Department dt.29-07-2023 of the 1st respondent without reference to their date of retirement along with pay and allowances, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass such other order.

¶56

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶57

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 orders dated 29-12-2023 passed in IA No. 1 of 2023 in WP no. 33264 of 2023 and also dismiss the Writ Petition as there are no merits in it and pass such other order.

¶58

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶59

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Memo Nos. 2312738/Ser.II/A/2023 dated 31-12-2023, 452500/Ser.I/2023 dated 27-01-2024 and 1342/Ser.(T)-I/2022 dated 27-02-2024 of the respondents 4 to 6 to the extent that the petitioner Nos. 1, 5 and 6 are not eligible for pay and allowances by directing the respondents to pay the salary and emoluments to the petitioners from the date of stopping the salary i.e. 01-01-2024, 01-02-2024 & 01-03-2024 and continue the same until the disposal of the writ petition and pass such other order.

¶60

6

¶61

IA NO: 3 OF 2024

¶62

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 extend the time for a period of four months for placing action taken report in terms orders passed in WP.No.33264/2023 dt: 29-12-2023 and pass such other order.

¶63

IA NO: 4 OF 2024

¶64

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extent the time for a period of four months for placing action taken report in terms orders passed in WP.No.33264 of 2023 dated 29-12-2023 and pass such other order.

¶65

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶66

KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

¶67

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶68

1.R CHANDRA REDDY

¶69

2.S PARINEETA

¶70

3.N B CHANDRA SEKHAR SC FOR YSR HORTICULTURE UNIVERSITY

¶71

4.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶72

5.GP FOR SERVICES III

¶73

6.VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA

¶74

7.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶75

8.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶76

9.S PRANATHI

¶77

WRIT PETITION NO: 8929/2024

¶78

Between:

¶79

DR K SARJAN RAO, S/O K. V. SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, DR YSR BHAVAN, SRI VENKATESWARA VETERINARY UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶80

7

¶81

DR. J. SURESH, S/O G. KRISHNAIAHCHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC DEAN OF DAIRY SCIENCE, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, DR YSR BHAVAN, SRI VENKATESWARA VETERINARY UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶82

DR. D. RAVINDRA KUMAR REDDY, S/O D. RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OCC DEAN OF FISHERY SCIENCE, COLLEGE OF FISHERY SCIENCE, ANDHRA PRADESH FISHERIES UNIVERSITY, MUTHUKUR CAMP OFFICE,MUTHUKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶83

...PETITIONER(S)

¶84

AND

¶85

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶86

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶87

SRI VENKATESWARA VETERINARY UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, DR YSR BHAVAN, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶88

ANDHRA PRADESH FISHERIES UNIVERSITY, CAMP OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, VISHAL RESIDENCY, 0PP. SIDDARTHA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, PADMAJA NAGAR, TADIGADAPA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶89

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION, NEELADRI TOWERS, 6TH BATTALION ROAD, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶90

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGHER EDUCATION REGULATORY AND MONITORING COMMISSION, 3^RD FLOOR, SREE MAHENDRA ENCLAVE, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶91

8

¶92

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶93

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 Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th respondent Universities in not enhancing the petitioners age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher Education (U.E.) Department dt.29-07-2023 issued by the 1st respondent on par with others who are drawing UGC Scale of pay in the Universities in the State is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.39 Higher Education (U.E.) Department dt.29-07-2023 of the 1^st respondent without reference to their date of retirement with Pay and Allowances and pass such other order.

¶94

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶95

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.39 Higher Education (U.E.) Department dt.29-07-2023 of the 1 st respondent without reference to their date of retirement along with pay and allowances, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass such other order.

¶96

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶97

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 may be pleased to permit the petitioners 1 and 2 to with draw the W.P.No. 8929/2024 in the interest of justice and pass such other order.

¶98

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶99

1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

¶100

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶101

1.S PARINEETA

¶102

2.R CHANDRA REDDY

¶103

9

¶104

3.-

¶105

4.VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA

¶106

5.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶107

6.KOTHA RAMA MOHAN RAO(SC FOR SVVUT)

¶108

WRIT PETITION NO: 22834/2025

¶109

Between:

¶110

KURUBA GOPAL, S/O. LATE GARJANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC PROFESSOR OF PLANT PATHOLOGY (DIRECT) AND TEMPORARILY AS VICE CHANCELLOR, DR. YSR HORTICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VENKATARAMANNAGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶111

...PETITIONER

¶112

AND

¶113

THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶114

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶115

DR YSR HORTICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, VENKATARAMANNAGUDEM, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶116

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent Nos.1 2 in not extending the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years to the Petitioner working in Horticulture, Agriculture, Veternary and Fisheries Universities, despite their being similarly situated to the teachers in Higher Education Universities covered by G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 29.07.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory. violative of Articles 14 16 of the Constitution of India, and

¶118

10

¶119

consequently direct the Respondents, particularly Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, to consider and approve the adoption of G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 29.07.2023, for faculty drawing UGC scales of pay in Respondent University thereby enhancing the age of the petitioner age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years forthwith, with all consequential benefits including continuity of service, salary and other attendant benefits and pass such other order.

¶120

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶121

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, particularly Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, to consider and approve the adoption of G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 29.07.2023, for faculty drawing UGC scales of pay in Respondent University thereby enhancing the age of the petitioner age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years forthwith, with all consequential benefits including continuity of service, salary and other attendant benefits in the light of the interim orders in W.P.Nos.29142 & 33264 of 2023 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other order.

¶122

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶123

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 may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated.29.08.2025 in WP.No.22834 of 2025 and dismiss the writ petition and pass such other order.

¶124

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶125

V SAI KUMAR

¶126

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶127

1.N B CHANDRA SEKHAR SC FOR YSR HORTICULTURE UNIVERSITY

¶128

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶129

11

¶130

WRIT PETITION NO: 23121/2025

¶131

Between:

¶132

R N RAMANI PUSHPA, D/O R. SAMBASIVA RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY MICROBIOLOGY, NTR COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SCIENCE, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶133

...PETITIONER

¶134

AND

¶135

THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶136

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶137

SRI VENKATESWARA VETERINARY UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, DR YSR BHAVAN, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶138

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶139

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 1 and 2 in not extending the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years to the petitioner working in the NTR College of Veterinary Science, Gannavaram, Krishna District which comes under the control of Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, despite their being similarly situated to the teachers in Higher Education Universities, covered by G.O.Ms.No.39 Higher Education (UE) Department dated 29-07-2023 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider and approve the adoption of G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher Education (UE) Department dated 29-07-2023 for faculty drawing UGC scales of pay in respondent

¶140

12

¶141

University thereby enhancing the age of the petitioner age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years forthwith, with all consequential benefits including continuity of service, salary and other attendant benefits and pass such other order.

¶142

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶143

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by enhancing the age of superannuation from 62 years to 65 years in terms of G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher Education (UE) department dated 29-07-2023, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order.

¶144

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶145

1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

¶146

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶147

1.GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY

¶148

2.R CHANDRA REDDY

¶149

3.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶150

WRIT PETITION NO: 24264/2025

¶151

Between:

¶152

DR. G. VENKATA NAIDU,, S/O. LATE APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, GARUGUBILLI MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.PROFESSOR AND UNIVERSITY HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY GYNAECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, NTR COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SCIENCE, SRI VENKATESWARA VETERINARY UNIVERSITY, GANNAVARAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶153

...PETITIONER

¶154

AND

¶155

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (UE) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶156

13

¶157

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND FISHERIES SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶158

THE REGISTRAR, SRI VENKATESWARA VETERINARY UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, DR. Y.S.R. BHAVAN, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶159

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶160

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 to issue a Writ or Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not implementing G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 29.07.2023 for the Petitioner as highly arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India subsequently declare the impugned Memo No.379817/Serl/2022 dated 30.10.2024 issued by Respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India Consequently, direct the Respondents to implement the said G.O.Ms.No.39 in respect of the Petitioner with all consequential benefits, including reinstatement into service and continuation in service till he attains the age of 65 years (i.e., until 31.03.2028) forthwith and to pass such other order.

¶161

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶162

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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents to implement the said G.O.Ms.No.39 in respect of the Petitioner with all consequential benefits, including reinstatement into service and continuation in service till he attains the age of 65 years (i.e., until 31.03.2028); forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other order.

¶163

14

¶164

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶165

1.V SAI KUMAR

¶166

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶167

1.GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY

¶168

2..

¶169

3.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶170

WRIT PETITION NO: 24266/2025

¶171

Between:

¶172

THALLABATHULA ANURADHA, W/O. KRISHNA PRASAD, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSOR AND HEAD DEPARTMENT OF GENITICS AND PLANT BUILDING, A.G. COLLEGE, A.N.G.R.A.U, RAJAHMUNDRY. R/O. H. NO. 48-1329, GANDHIPURAM, RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶173

...PETITIONER

¶174

AND

¶175

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (UE)), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶176

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND FISHERIES), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶177

THE REGISTRAR, ACHARYA N.G. RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE DEAN, AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶178

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶179

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction, more

¶180

15

¶181

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not implementing G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 29.07.2023 for the Petitioner as highly arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India subsequently declare the impugned Proceedings in Memo No.4012/Ser.ll/A2/2023 dated 04.04.2023 issued by Respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India Consequently, direct the Respondents to implement the said G.O.Ms.No.39 in respect of the Petitioner with all consequential benefits, including reinstatement into service and continuation in service till he attains the age of 65 years (i.e., until 01.05.2028) forthwith and to pass such other order.

¶182

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶183

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 implement the said G.O.Ms.No.39 in respect of the Petitioner with all consequential benefits, including reinstatement into service and continuation in service till he attains the age of 65 years (i.e., until 01.05.2028) forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other order.

¶184

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶185

1. V SAI KUMAR

¶186

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶187

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶188

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶189

3.S PRANATHI

¶190

WRIT PETITION NO: 24268/2025

¶191

Between:

¶192

DR. P. RAMA DEVI,, W/O. PUVVADA VENKATA SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O. 1-17-19, BADETIVARI STREET, NEAR KRISHNA MILK DIARY, RAMARAOPETA, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...PETITIONER

AND

16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (UE)), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶197

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND FISHERIES), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶198

THE REGISTRAR, DR. YSR HORTICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, VENKATARAMANNAGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶199

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶200

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not implementing G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 29.07.2023 for the Petitioner as highly arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India subsequently declare the impugned Proceedings No.3577/Ser(T)-l/2023 dated 07.06.2023 issued by Respondent No.3 as illega arbitrary and also oppose to article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India Consequently , direct the Respondents to implement the said G.O.Ms.No.39 in respect of the Petitioner with all consequential benefits, including reinstatement into service and continuation in service till he attains the age of 65 years (i.e., until 01.06.2028) forthwith.

¶201

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶202

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 implement the said G.O.Ms.No.39 in respect of the Petitioner with all consequential benefits, including reinstatement into service and continuation in service till he attains the age of 65 years (i.e., until 01.06.2028) forthwith pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶203

17

¶204

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶205

1. V SAI KUMAR

¶206

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶207

1.N B CHANDRA SEKHAR SC FOR YSR HORTICULTURE UNIVERSITY

¶208

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶209

3.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶210

WRIT PETITION NO: 24270/2025

¶211

Between:

¶212

L NARAM NAIDU, , S/O. GOPALAM, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC DEAN OF HORTICULTURE, ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, DR. YSRHU, VENKATARAMANNAGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, R/O. 1-8, BESIDE NH-43, BONDAPALLI, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶213

...PETITIONER

¶214

AND

¶215

THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (UE)), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶216

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND FISHERIES SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶217

THE REGISTRAR, DR. YSR HORTICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, VENKATARAMANNAGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶218

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶219

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction, more

¶220

18

¶221

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not implementing G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 29.07.2023 for the Petitioner as highly arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India subsequently declare the impugned Proceedings No.3577/Ser(T)-1/2023 dated 07.06.2023 issued by Respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India Consequently, direct the Respondents to implement the said G.O.Ms.No.39 in respect of the Petitioner with all consequential benefits, including reinstatement into service and continuation in service till he attains the age of 65 years (i.e., until 01.05.2028) forthwith and to pass such other order.

¶222

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶223

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 implement the said G.O.Ms.No.39 in respect of the Petitioner with all consequential benefits, including reinstatement into service and continuation in service till he attains the age of 65 years (i.e., until 01.05.2028); forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other order.

¶224

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶225

1. V SAI KUMAR

¶226

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶227

1.N B CHANDRA SEKHAR SC FOR YSR HORTICULTURE UNIVERSITY

¶228

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶229

3.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶230

WRIT PETITION NO: 24312/2025

¶231

Between:

¶232

DR. MITTA CHINA OBAIAH,, S/O. YERRA OBAIAH, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION, AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, BAPATLA, R/O.25-2-520, 12TH STREET, LAKE VIEW COLONY, PADALAKUR ROAD, NELLORE, SRI POTTI SRI RAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...PETITIONER

19

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (UE) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶237

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND FISHERIES SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶238

THE REGISTRAR, , ACHARYA N.G. RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, LAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶239

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶240

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not implementing G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 29.07.2023 for the Petitioner as highly arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India subsequently declare the impugned Proceedings in Memo No.4012/Ser.ll/A2/2023 dated 18.07.2024 issued by Respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to article 14 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India Consequently, direct the Respondents to implement the said G.O.Ms.No.39 in respect of the Petitioner with all consequential benefits, including reinstatement into service and continuation in service till he attains the age of 65 years (i.e., until 01.05.2028) forthwith and to pass such other order.

¶241

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶242

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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents to implement the said G.O.Ms.No.39 in respect of the Petitioner with all consequential benefits, including reinstatement into service and continuation in service till he attains the age of 65 years (i.e., until 01.05.2028); forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other order.

¶243

20

¶244

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶245

1. V SAI KUMAR

¶246

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶247

1.GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY 2.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶248

3.S PRANATHI

¶249

The Court made the following:

¶250

21

¶251

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶252

WRIT PETITION Nos.29142 and 33264 of 2023, 8929 of 2024, 22834,

¶253

23121, 24264, 24266, 24268, 24270 and 24312 of 2025

¶254

COMMON ORDER:

¶255

These Writ Petitions are filed questioning the action of the Respondent-Universities in not enhancing the age of superannuation from ‘62 years’ to ‘65 years’ pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher Education (U.E.) Department, dated 29.07.2023 on par with similarly placed employees, who are drawing UGC Scales of Pay in the RespondentUniversities, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶256

As the issue in all these Writ Petitions is common, a Common Order is being passed.

¶257

The facts in brief are as follows;

¶258

The Petitioners were drawing UGC Scales of Pay and were working as teaching faculty in various Colleges under the control of Respondent-Universities viz., Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural Research University, Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Dr. Y.S.R. Horticulture University and A.P. Fisheries University.

¶259

Respondent No.1-State had issued G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 29.07.2023, enhancing the age of superannuation of regular Teachers working in the Universities of the

¶260

22

¶261

State of Andhra Pradesh under the administrative control of Higher Education from ‘62 years’ to ‘65 years’. It was stated that the enhanced age of superannuation applies only to the Teachers, who are drawing UGC Scales of Pay in the Universities of the State.

¶262

Though the Petitioners are working as teaching faculty and drawing UGC Scales of Pay, the enhanced age of retirement was not extended to the Petitioners on the ground that the Universities in which they are working are under the administrative control of the Agriculture Department and not under the Higher Education Department.

¶263

In the Counter-Affidavit filed by Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University in W.P.No.29142 of 2023, it is stated that they are awaiting orders from the A.P. Agriculture & Cooperation Department for adopting and accepting the enhanced age of superannuation of ’65 years’. It is also stated that the enhanced age of superannuation has financial implications and there would be a requirement to prepare a separate budget.

¶264

In the Counter-Affidavit filed by Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University in W.P.No.33264 of 2023, it is stated that since enhancement of the age of superannuation involves additional financial commitment, the University had requested the Government to permit the enhancement

¶265

23

¶266

of the age of superannuation of all regular Teachers working in the University. A reference was made to Section 39 of The Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University Act, 2005 (A.P. Act 18 of 2005) under which the University was established to substantiate the plea that financial obligations required approval from the State Government.

¶267

In the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Dr. Y.S.R. Horticulture University in W.P.No.22834 of 2025, it is stated that the University has forwarded the request for enhancement of age of superannuation of teaching faculty to ‘65 years’ and also said that it would benefit to maintain the Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor ratio, which is required for securing and maintaining essential accreditations from the bodies like NAEAB (National Agricultural Education Accreditation Board) and Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi for better rankings in NIRF/IIRF. It is further stated that the University has forwarded the request for enhancement of the age of superannuation to the Agriculture & Cooperation Department of the State Government and orders are awaited on this aspect.

¶268

It is further mentioned in the Counter-Affidavit that a joint representation signed by the Vice-Chancellors of all the four Universities viz., Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural Research University, Dr. Y.S.R. Horticulture University, Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University and A.P. Fisheries University was submitted to the Special Chief Secretary,

¶269

24

¶270

Agriculture & Cooperation Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh for extension of the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation vide G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 29.07.2023. It is further mentioned that a resolution was also passed by the Board of Management of the University to that effect.

¶271

Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education had passed

¶272

on a Memo No.2993798/UE/A2/2025, dated 11.10.2025 stating that the Petitioners are the employees of the Universities which are under administrative control of the Agriculture Department and Animal Husbandry Department, therefore, any decision regarding enhancement of their age of superannuation or otherwise has to be taken by the concerned Administrative Departments only and the High Education Department has no role in this regard.

¶273

Curiously, no Counter-Affidavit is filed by the Agriculture Department and Animal Husbandry Department though the Writ Petitions pending from the year 2023 onwards.

¶274

Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that there is no rationality in not extending the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation, as the Petitioners are also coming under the category of teaching faculty and drawing UGC Scales of Pay. It is further contended that merely because the administrative control is with the Agriculture

¶275

25

¶276

Department, the same per se cannot be a ground to deny the benefit and that there is no rationality in this classification.

¶277

The learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respective Universities would contend that the issue is pending for consideration before the concerned Agricultural Department of the State Government and unless appropriate policy decision is taken to extend the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation to the teaching faculty of the Respondent-Universities, the benefit cannot be extended, as the same would amount to alteration of the service conditions apart from having financial implications on the budgets of the University.

¶278

Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao submitted that a decision should be taken by the Agriculture Department and that the Higher Education Department has no role to play in the claims of the Petitioners.

¶279

Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.Nos.29142 and 33264 of 2023 and W.P.No.8929 of 2024, Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.Nos.22834, 24264, 24266, 24268, 24270 and 24312 of 2025 and Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.No.23121 of 2025 and Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, Sri N. B. Chandrasekhar,

¶280

26

¶281

learned Standing Counsel for Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural Research University, Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Sri N. Bala Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Dr. Y.S.R. Horticultural University and Sri R. Chandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. Fisheries University.

¶282

Reasoning:

¶283

The premise on which the G.O.Ms No.39, Higher Education (U.E) Department, dated 29.07.2023 issued was that the Secretary, A.P. State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE) had issued a letter stating that the 6^th Central Pay Commission had recommended for enhancement of age of Teachers to ‘65 years’.

¶284

On the contrary, the 6^th Central Pay Commission in Chapter 6.2, dealing with Age of Superannuation and voluntary Retirement had rejected the enhancement of age beyond ‘60 years’ except for extension of services for a period of two (2) years for Medical Specialists and Scientists only. The Commission noted the population statistics and noted that the younger population is on the higher side and youth would bring in more dynamism into bureaucracy. The relevant portion of the report is extracted below;

¶285

27

¶286

“Demands 6.2.3::: The Commission has received many demands for increasing the age of superannuation further keeping in view the increased longevity and better health care facilities leading to improved health standards. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare had sent a proposal seeking enhancement of the age of superannuation of General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) of Central Health Service to 62 years.

¶287

Recommendations 6.2.4::: It is observed that the Fifth CPC increased the age of superannuation to 60 years precisely on these very considerations. The same grounds cannot, therefore, be justifiably used to further increase the age of superannuation. Another reason that prompted the Fifth Pay Commission to increase the age of superannuation to 60 years was the tendency on the part of senior officers to seek extension of service for further two years so that they could serve till 60 years. The Fifth CPC, in their wisdom, thought that a general increase in the age of superannuation coupled with total ban on extension of service except for certain specified categories, will remove this tendency to seek extension beyond the prescribed age of superannuation. This has clearly not happened. The tendency amongst the senior officials to seek extension of service beyond stipulated age of superannuation of 60 years has not abated at all. The argument for any further increase in the age of superannuation, therefore, becomes all the more unsustainable. Economic Survey, 2006-07 shows that out of the entire population of 111.2 crore, 3.57 crore is below 15 years, 69.9 crore between the age of 15-64 years and only 5.6 crore of and above the age of 65 years. According to the Technical Group on Population projections constituted by

¶288

28

¶289

the National Commission on Population, the demographic dividend will manifest in the proportions of population in the working age group of 15-64 years increasing steadily from 62.9 per cent in 2006 to 68.4% in 2020. As such, a younger pool of manpower is and will be available for the requirements of the Government. This shows that India is a youthful nation with a majority of population in the working age group and this youthful profile will only increase in the decades to come. Besides, the entire import of this Report is towards maintaining a youthful profile of the bureaucracy that will be more dynamic, result oriented and better attuned to the needs of their constituents. In fact, the Commission has recommended liberalization of the extant pension rules with full pension being granted on completion of 20 years service so as to facilitate early exit of willing employees from the Government. In such a scenario, no rationale exists for recommending any further increase in the age of superannuation. The Commission is also not in favour of recommending a blanket increase in the age of superannuation for all General Duty Medical Officers belonging to Central Health Service. The Commission recommends that the current age of superannuation should be maintained. Further, except in the case of Scientists and Medical Specialists, no extensions should be given in any other case. Tenure based posts should be filled by incumbents who have sufficient period of service left before the stipulated age of retirement. Medical Specialists and Scientists may, however, be allowed extension of service of upto 2 years on a case to case basis.”

¶290

29

¶291

Though the State Government being the employer, can enhance the age of superannuation dehors the 6^th Central Pay Commission report for valid reasons, the reasoning in G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 29.07.2023, does not reflect well in the way the decisions are made.

¶292

Be that as it may, the State Government had issued G.O.Ms.. No.59, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 24.12.2014, enhancing the age of ‘62 years’ to all the Universities in the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 02.06.2014 and accordingly the RespondentUniversities viz., Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural Research University, Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Dr. Y.S.R. Horticulture University and A.P. Fisheries University had implemented the same.

¶293

Now, the G.O.Ms No.39, Higher Education (U.E) Department, dated 29.7.2023, was issued, enhancing the age of superannuation to the teaching faculty in the Universities under the control of Higher Education Department to ‘65 years’. Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 29.07.2023, the Respondent-Universities viz., Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural Research University, Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, Dr. Y.S.R. Horticulture University and A.P. Fisheries University, which are under the administrative control of the Agriculture Department and other Departments of the State, had sought approval of the State Government to enhance the age of superannuation of the teaching staff.

¶294

30

¶295

The restriction of the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation under G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher Education (UE) Department, dated 29.07.2023 to the teaching faculty drawing UGC Scales of Pay in the Universities under the control of Higher Education Department and not extending the benefit to the teaching faculty drawing UGC Scales of Pay in the Universities under the control of Agriculture Department and other Departments in the absence of any reasons by way of Counter-Affidavit before this Court, prima facie appears to be doubtful. However, the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a policy decision to be taken by the State, taking note of the financial implications and the availability of requisite teaching faculty with expertise in the respective Universities under the Administrative control of the Agriculture Department.

¶296

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Prakasan M.P., and Others v. State of Kerala¹ , while dealing with the claim of enhanced age of superannuation, held that these are policy issues and it is not for Courts to prescribe a different age of superannuation. The relevant Paragraph thereof is extracted below;

¶297

“11. It is well-settled that the age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of the State Government. It is not for the courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from the one applicable to Government employees

¶298

1 2023 Supreme (SC) 801

¶299

31

¶300

under the relevant service Rules and Regulations. Nor can the Court insist that once the State had taken a decision to issue a similar Government Order that would extend the age of retirement of the staff teaching in the Homeopathic Colleges as was issued in respect of different categories of teaching staff belonging to the Dental stream and the Ayurvedic stream, the said G.O. ought to have been made retrospective, as was done when G.O. dated 14th January, 2010 was issued by the State and given retrospective effect from 1st May, 2009. These are all matters of policy that engage the State Government. It may even elect to give the benefit of extension of age to a particular class of Government employees while denying the said benefit to others for valid considerations that may include financial implications, administrative considerations, exigencies of service, etc.”

¶301

23. Similarly, in New Okhal Industrial Development Authority and

¶302

Another v. B.D. Singhal and Others² , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the age of superannuation is a policy matter and not for the Courts to venture into. The Paragraphs 22 and 26 thereof are extracted below;

¶303

“22. Whether the age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance the age of superannuation, the date with effect from which the enhancement should be made falls within the realm of policy. The High Court in ordering that the decision of the State Government to accept the proposal to enhance the age of superannuation must date back to 29-6-2002 has evidently lost sight of the above factual background, more specifically (i) the rejection of the original

¶304

2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 466

¶305

32

¶306

proposal on 22-9-2009; and (ii) the judgment of the Division Bench dated 17-1-20124 refusing to set aside the order rejecting the proposal on 22-9-2009 which has attained finality. But there is a more fundamental objection to the basis of the decision of the High Court. The infirmity in the judgment lies in the fact that the High Court has trenched upon the realm of policy making and has assumed to itself, jurisdiction over a matter which lies in the domain of the executive. Whether the age of superannuation should be increased and if so, the date from which this should be effected is a matter of policy into which the High Court ought not to have entered. ”

¶307

“26. The High Court’s observation that the Government Order on 30-9-2012 increasing the age of superannuation prospectively is arbitrary seems to be based on the premise that the respondent employees have a vested right to the increase in the age of retirement on the passage of the resolution by Noida Authority. However, Section 19 of the Act stipulates that regulations — which would include amendments as in this case — will require the previous approval of the State Government. The employees will have a vested right to the increased age of superannuation only after the Service Regulations are modified upon approval of the State Government, and from such date as may be prescribed by the Government. Para 1(ii) of the Government Order issued on 30-9-2012 clearly and in unambiguous terms states that the order shall come into force prospectively. The government order can be given retrospective application only if expressly stated or inferred through necessary implication. Therefore, the respondent employees could not have claimed a vested right that the enhancement in the age of retirement should be made effective from the date on which Noida Authority had resolved to submit a proposal for the approval of the Government.”

¶308

33

¶309

A similar view was also taken in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das³ vis-a-vis rejecting the claim of parity of age of superannuation by Ayush doctor working in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) with the enhanced age of superannuation with Ayush doctors working Ministry of Ayush and CGHS Hospitals.

¶310

In the light of the above, as the issue of the age of superannuation is a matter of policy of the State, it would be appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petitions with the following directions;

¶311

(i) The State Government shall take a comprehensive decision on the extension of G.O.Ms.No.39, Higher Education (U.E.) Department, dated 29.07.2023 to the Universities under the administrative control of the Agriculture Department, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶312

(ii) No order as to costs.

¶313