U Sudhakara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Y.SITA BHASKARI, W/O.RAM BABU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC DEPUTY MANAGER (GENERAL) IN AP CO-OPERATIVE OIL SEEDS GROWER'S FEDERATION LIMITED, R/O.D.NO.2503, B-BLOCK, KVNM ESTATE, KOMARAIAH THOPU, KANUR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION AND MARKETING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE AP COOPERATIVE OIL SEEDS GROWERS FEDERATION LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT REPT. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

2

¶18

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 topleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not extending the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 3rd Respondent in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31-01-2022 issued by the 1st Respondent and consequential board resolution dated 01-022022 passed by the 3rd Respondent and also declare the circulation board meeting resolution dated 25-01-2024 passed by the 3rd Respondent Federation reducing the age of superannuation from 62 years to 60 years based on circular memo dated 23-09-2022 issued by the 1st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to continue the Petitioner in service till she attains the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶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 pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to continue the Petitioner in service till she attains the age of 62 years by suspending the circular board meeting resolution dated 25-01-2024 passed by the 3rd Respondent Federation pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.B RAGHAVA REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶25

3

¶26

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 9075/2024

¶28

Between:

¶29

U SUDHAKARA RAO, S/O LATE SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. MANAGER (TECH), AP COOPERATION OIL SEEDS GROWERS FEDERATION, OIL PROCESSING PLANT, KAKINADA, R/O. DOOR NO. 15-91, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, BESIDES WATER TANK, VIDHHYA NAGAR, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT534007.

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

AND

¶32

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

¶33

THE COMMISSIONER FOR COOPERATION AND REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHYAMALA NAGAR, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM.

¶34

THE AP COOPERATIVE OIL SEEDS GROWERS FEDERATION LTD, REP. BY ITS VC AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, D.NO.55-17, 2 TO 4, 4TH FLOOR, C BLOCK. ROAD NO.2, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, JAWAHAR, AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA- 520007.

¶35

THE GENERAL MANAGER, OIL PALM PROCESSING PLANT, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, AP.

¶36

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶37

4

¶38

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 topleased to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the circulation board meeting resolution, dt.25-01-2024 of the 3rd Respondent federation is arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the provisions of AP Cooperative Societies Act and the rules framed thereunder and to quash or set aside the same, and to issue a consequential direction to the Respondents No.3 and 4 to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits and to pass

¶39

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶40

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 pleased to continue the services of the age of petitioner till he attains the age of 62 years by suspending the circular board meeting resolution, dt.25-012024 of the 3rd Respondent federation and to pass

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶42

1.NAGA CHANDRIKA.D

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶44

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶45

2.P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶46

WRIT PETITION NO: 9535/2024

¶47

Between:

¶48

V CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, S/O LATE V.C.MADDILETI REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC GENERAL MANAGER, AP COOPERATION OIL SEEDS GROWERS FEDERATION HEAD OFFICE VIJAYAWADA. R/O.

¶49

5

¶50

H.NO.74-6-11, AYYAPPA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, NEAR AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶51

...PETITIONER

¶52

AND

¶53

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE AND COOPERATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

¶54

THE COMMISSIONER FOR COOPERATION AND REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHYAMALA NAGAR KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM.

¶55

THE AP COOPERATIVE OIL SEEDS GROWERS FEDERATION LTD, REP. BY ITS VC AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, D.NO.55-17, 2 TO 4, 4TH FLOOR, C BLOCK. ROAD NO.2, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, JAWAHAR, AUTO NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA- 520007

¶56

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶57

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 topleased to issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the circulation board meeting resolution, dt.25-01-2024 of the 3rd Respondent federation is arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of powerand in violationof Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the provisions of AP Cooperative Societies Act and the rules framed thereunder and to quash or set aside the same, and to issue a consequential direction to the 3rd Respondent to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits and to pass

¶58

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶59

6

¶60

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 pleased to continue the services of the age of petitioner till he attains the age of 62 years by suspending the circular board meeting resolution, dt.25-012024 of the Respondent federation and to pass

¶61

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶62

1.NAGA CHANDRIKA.D

¶63

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶64

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶65

2.P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶66

WRIT PETITION NO: 10754/2024

¶67

Between:

¶68

V NAGESHWAR RAO, S/O.KRISHNA DAS, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC FOREMAN, WORKING IN AP COOPERATIVE OIL SEEDS GROWERS FEDERATION LIMITED, OPP-PEDAVEGI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT.

¶69

N.PRATHAP KUMAR REDDY, S/O.LATE N.SRINIVASULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC MANAGER (OPD AND B.M) WORKING IN HEAD OFFICE OF AP COOPERATIVE OIL SEEDS GROWERS FEDERATION LIMITED, R/O.FLAT NO.403B, SIRI JEVEL APARTMENTS, ROAD NO.3, SRI AYYAPPA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶70

...PETITIONER(S)

¶71

AND

¶72

THE STATE OF AP, REPT. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶73

7

¶74

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION AND MARKETING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶75

THE AP COOPERATIVE OIL SEEDS GROWERS FEDERATION LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT REPT, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶76

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶77

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 topleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not extending the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years to the employees of the 3rd Respondent in terms of the G.O.Ms.No. 15, dated 31-01-2022 issued by the 1 st Respondent and consequential board resolution dated 01-022022 passed by the 3rd Respondent and also declare the circulation board meeting resolution dated 25-01-2024 passed by the 3rd Respondent Federation reducing the age of superannuation from 62 years to 60 years based on circular memo dated 23-09-2022 issued by the 1 st Respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to continue the Petitioners in service till they attain the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.

¶78

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶79

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 pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to continue the Petitioners in service till they attain the age of 62 years by suspending the circular board meeting resolution dated 25-01-2024 passed by the 3rd Respondent

¶80

8

¶81

Federation pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶82

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶83

1.B RAGHAVA REDDY

¶84

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶85

1.GP FOR SERVICES II (AP)

¶86

2.GP FOR SERVICES I (AP)

¶87

3.P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶88

The Court made the following:

¶89

9

¶90

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶91

W.P.No.9834, 9075, 9535 and 10754 of 2024

¶92

COMMON ORDER:

¶93

These writ petitions are filed questioning the Board Resolution dated 25.01.2024, whereunder the age of Superannuation was amended from 62 to 60 years as illegal and arbitrary.

¶94

The petitioners are employees working in various designations of Respondent No.3-A.P. Cooperative Oil Seeds Grower’s Federation Limited, Vijayawada.

¶95

As per the Board Resolution dated 01.02.2022, the age of Superannuation of the employees of Respondent No.3 was enhanced from 60 to 62 years pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR-IV-FR & LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 amending the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation) Act, 1984. Subsequently, vide board resolution dated 25.01.2024, the age of superannuation was reversed to 60

¶96

years and the Board Resolution dated 01.02.2022 was withdrawn. The service regulations of the Respondent No.3 enables the Board to amend Clause-4 of the Service Regulations as it deems fit. As the Petitioners are losing out the benefit of

¶97

10

¶98

enhancement of age of Superannuation of 62 years, the present writ petitions are filed.

¶99

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that vide impugned notification withdrawing the benefit of enhancement of age of Superannuation cannot be sustained and the Petitioners are entitled for the said relief of continuing till the age of 62 years.

¶100

Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Board is competent to take appropriate decisions, considering the financial status of the Board and as the Board had taken a conscious decision to withdraw the resolution dated 01.02.2022, the Petitioners cannot have any vested right for enhancing the age of Superannuation of 62 years. It is further stated that the resolution dated 25.01.2024 need not carry the logical end as the amendment to the Service Regulations.

¶101

Heard Sri V. Bhargava Reddy and D. Naga Chandrika, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services – I.

¶102

The clause-4 of the Service Regulations of the Respondent-Federation enables the Board to amend the Service

¶103

11

¶104

Regulations from time to time. Clause-4 of the Service Regulations and Bye-Laws is extracted below:-

¶105

4.0 CHANGE IN REGULATIONS:

¶106

4.1 The Board shall be competent to add to these regulations and/or alter, relax or cancel, all or any of the regulations from time to time and also give effect to them from such date/dates as it deems fit.

¶107

Under the impugned resolution, the enhanced age of Superannuation was withdrawn and the same is well within the power conferred in the service regulations referred above.

¶108

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, nothing has been pointed out with regard to the power of the Board to withdraw the earlier resolution. In the absence of such plea, the writ petition seeking to enforce the resolution dated 01.02.2022 cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the employees do not have any vested right to continue till the age of 62 years and the same is being subject to the Board Resolution and Regulations.

¶109

Apart from that, enhancement of the age is a policy decision as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.M. Gadre v. M.G. Diwan and Others¹ that even while exercising jurisdiction

¶110

1 (1996) 3 SCC 454

¶111

12

¶112

under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it would not be permissible for the Court to substitute all the existing service conditions. The relevant portion at paragraph 10 is extracted below:

¶113

“....While exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 142 it would not be permissible for the Court to substitute all the existing service conditions by a totally new set of service conditions.”

¶114

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Prakasan M.P., and Others v. State of Kerala² , 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;

¶115

“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 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

¶116

2 2023 Supreme (SC) 801

¶117

13

¶118

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.”

¶119

Similarly, in New Okhal Industrial Development Authority and Another v. B.D. Singhal and Others³ , 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;

¶120

“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

¶121

3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 466

¶122

14

¶123

factual background, more specifically (i) the rejection of the original 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. ”

¶124

“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

¶125

15

¶126

had resolved to submit a proposal for the approval of the Government.”

¶127

A similar view was also taken in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das⁴ 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 in Ministry of Ayush and CGHS Hospitals. Paragraph 48 is extracted below:

¶128

“48 . We may only say that the entire approach of the High Court towards the present litigation was incorrect. We are a bit disappointed to observe that the High Court dealt with the present litigation in a very casual manner. First, the High Court went to the extent of granting interim relief extending the period of service beyond 60 years till the disposal of the Original Petition by the CAT. By virtue of such interim order which the High Court ordinarily should not grant, the respondent No. 1 although was to retire in 2018 yet continued in service till 2021. It is only when this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the High Court while issuing notice that the service of the respondent No. 1 came to an end. The Court or the Tribunal should, therefore, be slow and circumspect in granting interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated. But if he fails, he would have

¶129

4 (2023) 16 SCC 462

¶130

16

¶131

enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the High Court was conscious of the fact as very much recorded in the impugned order that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Research Assistant and was functioning as a Researcher under the Research Council and his service conditions were also different compared to the AYUSH doctors serving with the Ministry of AYUSH. The High Court misdirected itself saying that the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation can also be granted if the duties performed are the same like AYUSH doctors. We fail to understand how can the Court fix the age of superannuation of an employee saying that he is very much devoted towards his job. The age of superannuation is always governed by statutory rules & other service conditions.”

¶132

In view of the factual and legal position, no case is made out for the Petitioners and accordingly writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶133

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand

¶134

dismissed.

¶135

___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶136

Date: 03.12.2025

¶137

KLP/CHS

U Sudhakara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U Sudhakara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr P Brahmamanda Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Chavvakula Govinda Vs Sri K.Dinesh Kumar, I.A.S

P Victor Babu Vs the Railway Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited

Sri Suluru Siva Prasad Vs the State of Ap

V Chandra Sekhar Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

A Gajendra Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh