Case title: Sri Puvvada Venkata Mohana Murali Krishna Murthy and Ors. VS. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
Case no: W.P. No.4861 of 2018
Order on: May , 2024
Quorum: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Fact of the case:
The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4861 of 2018, along with several other related petitions, were former employees of the Prakasam District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, who retired at the age of 58 years, the age of superannuation set by the bank. They contend that they should have been retired at the age of 60 years, citing the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014, which mandated the retirement age as 60 years for government employees.
Issues framed by court:
- Whether the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014, are applicable to employees of Cooperative Central Banks?
- Whether the petitioners, who are the employees of a corporate body like a Cooperative Bank can claim to have been discriminated as against the Government employees.
- Whether the Government Orders (G.O.Ms.No.112) deferring the enhancement of the age of superannuation for employees of certain public sector undertakings are valid?
Legal provisions:
Section 3(1) of Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014: Deals with the retirement age of government employees.
Rule 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (APCS) Act : Deals with the retirement age of employees in cooperative societies in Andhra Pradesh.
Section 115D of the APCS Act: Deals with the constitution of the Central Cooperative Banks, their functions, management, administration, and powers conferred upon them.
Contentions of Appellant:
The petitioners argued that they should be entitled to retire at the age of 60 years as per the 2014 amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Act, which mandates the retirement age for government employees. They also contend that the government orders deferring the enhancement of the retirement age are invalid.
Contentions of Respondents:
The respondent argued that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders (G.O.Ms.No.112) regarding the enhancement of the age of superannuation. The respondent argued that decisions regarding the age of superannuation are within the discretionary powers of the State Government and are subject to considerations such as financial implications and administrative feasibility. They asserted that the Government took necessary steps to ensure compliance with legal requirements, including obtaining approvals and making necessary amendments to rules and regulations governing the age of superannuation. They contend that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014, amendment and subsequent government orders are not applicable to employees of Cooperative Central Banks and certain public sector undertakings as mentioned in the Reorganisation Act.
Court analysis& Judgement:
In this case, The court dismissed the petitions filed by the employees of the Cooperative Central Bank who sought retirement at the age of 60 instead of 58. The court held that the 2014 amendment, which increased the retirement age to 60 for government employees, did not apply to Cooperative Central Bank employees at that time. It consider whether the Cooperative Central Bank employees fall under the definition of “government employees” as per the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, and whether the government orders deferring the enhancement of retirement age are legally valid. The court said the government’s decision to delay the retirement age increase was reasonable. The court’s decision was influenced by a previous case called G. Rama Mohan Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh. In that case, it was decided that certain government orders needed approval before they could be enforced.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
