Dismissed

Smt.Kaza Sekharamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC13 Dec 2016WP/14976/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging enforced retirement age of 58 years relied on a CM's promise of extension to 60 years. This court dismissed the writ petition as there was no dispute that employers decided to retain the age at 58 years, granting liberty to question the employers separately.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to question employers' orders retaining superannuation age at 58 years in separate proceedings.

Smt.Kaza Sekharamma Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.14976 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Smt. M.Shalini, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Smt. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Sri V.Kishore, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶5

The petitioners in this Writ Petition are employees of the District Cooperative Central Bank, Guntur, District Cooperative Central Bank, Krishna. They assail the action of the respondents in proposing to retire them from service on attaining the age of 58 years. They contend that as per the Act 4 of 2014, Government employees are allowed to retire at the age of 60 years and a statement was also made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister on the day when he was sworn in as Chief Minister that employees would be allowed to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years.

¶6

On 13-07-2016, this Court directed the respondents to take a decision with regard to the age of superannuation taking into consideration the provisions of Section 115-D (2) (iv) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and also memoes of the Government issued from time to time.

¶7

MSR,J W.P.No.14976 of 2015

¶8

¶9

It is not in dispute that subsequent thereto, the respective employers of the petitioners have decided to retain the age of superannuation at 58 years only and did not extend the age of superannuation of their employees to 60 years.

¶10

Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the Writ Petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, they are given liberty to question the orders of their respective employers in retaining the age of superannuation of their employees to 58 years in a separate proceedings. No costs.

¶11

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶13

Date: 13-12-2016 kvr

Smt.Kaza Sekharamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Kaza Sekharamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary

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

Ch.Parameswararao, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

The Depot Manager, Vs Regional Executive Member Apsrtc Employees Union

P.V.R.N. Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Shanthi Sree Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Facor Labour Union, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Embadi Shankar Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary