CASE TITTLE: Sri Puvvada Venkata Mohana Murali Krishna Murthy V The State of Andhra Pradesh,
CASE NO: W.P. No.4861 of 2018
DATED ON: .05.2024
QUORUM: DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ, R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The factual matrix leading to the present appeal in question is that, all petitioners were employees of the Prakasam District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, who retired at the age of 58 years having attained the age of superannuation and retired by the year 2017. The case of the petitioners is that they ought to have been retired on attaining the age of 60 years. With a view to support this fact, the petitioners stated that the Andhra Pradesh Legislature enacted the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014,
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, providing instructions for implementation of the said Act reiterating the fact that the provisions under the said section was applicable only to the categories mentioned therein and none else. Subsequently it was envisaged that the enhancement of age of superannuation would not be made applicable to the employees of the Public Sector Undertakings and Institutions listed in the IX and X Schedules of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 until the matter of division of assets and liabilities of the institutions between the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was settled and the allotment of the employees between the two states was finalized for those public section undertakings and institutions. It appears that the decision taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh enhancing the age of superannuation of employees of public sector undertakings under the administrative control of the Government from 58 to 60 years was kept in abeyance till such time as a policy was formulated in that regard. The stand of the Government is very clear, The Government Order dated 08.08.2017 permitting the employees to continue up to the age of 60 years has come into effect with effect from 2.6.2014. Therefore, all employees who have superannuated on account of attainment of age of 58 years on 02.06.2014 or thereafter are entitled to the protection of their service up to 60 years of age and naturally to all consequential benefits arising there from.” The petitioners herein, in the meantime, had approached the Bank for purposes of seeking an enhancement in their age of superannuation from 58 to 60 purportedly based upon the said Act, The Bank by virtue of its decision, resolved to enhance the age of superannuation of employees working in the Bank from 58 to 60 years from the month of June, 2017 onwards. Representations filed by the petitioners to give the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation retrospectively came to be rejected on the ground that the financial situation of the Bank was not such as would warrant the enhancement in the age of superannuation, In the present writ petition, the petitioners challenge the action of the Bank in not enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 retrospectively with effect from 02.06.2014 as was done in the case of institutions falling in Schedules IX and X of the Reorganisation Act, It is stated that the refusal of the Bank to grant such a retrospective benefit was arbitrary, illegal, unjust and discriminatory. Apart from this, it was urged that the Bank was discriminating between those, who retired post 02.06.2014 and those who are working as on 30.06.2017 and that the decision to enhance the age of superannuation only from the month of June, 2017 onwards was irrational.
LEGAL ISSUES:
- 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 or for that matter, the employees working for entities listed under Schedule IX and X of the Reorganisation Act?
- whether the petitioners can claim discrimination between the employees of those entities, which are listed under Schedule IX and X of the Reorganisation Act and the petitioners, who are employees of a Cooperative Credit Society?
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Sec 3(1) of Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014, lays that Every Government employee shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years.”
Section 115D of the APCS Act talks about the Special provisions applicable to Co-operative Credit Societies.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLEANT:
It petitioners through their counsel submitted that since the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was silent regarding the age of superannuation and that reference regarding the age of superannuation was only made in Rule 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, therefore, the policy as laid down in the said act was required to be followed.the counsel further urged that Section 115(D) of the APCS Act did not empower the Board of Management of the Bank to enhance the retirement age and that the decision had to be taken by the Government. The counsel further submitted that Section 115(D)(2)(iv) of the APCS Act although covered the matters of personnel policy, staffing, recruitment etc., but would not cover the matter of superannuation, which was covered under Section 28(6) of the APCS Rules, therefore, it was sought to be urged that the case of the petitioners could not have been ignored for grant of similar relief to the petitioners.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
The respondents,through their counsel Mr. C. Sumon, submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the said Act inasmuch as the petitioners were not Government employees as defined in Subsection (2) of Section 1 of the said Act. It was urged that the said Act was not applicable to the employees of the public enterprises and autonomous institutions. It was stated that the petitioners were employees working in the cooperative credit societies, which were autonomous in their functioning and that having considered the issue of enhancement in the age of superannuation, the Bank had taken a conscious decision to enhance the age of superannuation of their employees from 58 to 60 with effect from June, 2017, the counsel further urged that fixation of the age of superannuation was in the nature of a policy decision and there was nothing perverse about increasing the age of superannuation with effect from June, 2017 and that being a policy decision, ordinarily, the same could not be interfered by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction except on the grounds of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Counsel further stated that Chapter XIII-B of the APCS Act was a special provision applicable to the Cooperative Credit Societies, which, among others, introduced Section 115D (2) providing autonomy to the Cooperative Credit Societies. It was also stated that Section 115D was an overriding provision, which prevailed over Rule 28(6) of the APCS Rules.
COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
The court on hearing both the sides, considered that the petitioners can certainly be not called as Government employees, as they do not fall within the definition of „Government employees‟ as defined under the Act No.23 of 1984. If that be so, it is no longer res integra that employees of corporate bodies cannot demand as a matter of right to be treated similarly as employees of the State Government. The court further intend to agree with learned counsel for the respondents that Section 115D of the APCS Act, which is a special provision applicable to Cooperative Credit Societies, which was incorporated in Chapter XIII-B by the act, does give autonomy to such cooperative credit societies, among others, as regards personnel policy, staffing,etc on various other discussions, The court opined that the decision taken by the Government for those entities, which find a mention in Schedule IX and X, would not bind the district cooperative central banks, which are cooperative credit societies, who are independently required to take a call considering various factors including their financial capacity for purposes of determining as to whether there Batch should be an extension in the age of superannuation and if at all from which date. the court further opined that, the decision taken by the DCCB is in the nature of a policy decision, howerever the court opined that the decision to increase the age of superannuation from a prospective date i.e., June, 2017 has also been taken after taking into consideration the benefit of enhancement of superannuation from 58 to 60 years as also considering the financial impact on account of salary and other benefits, which the Bank would have to pay in view of such an increase. Therefore the court observed that decision taken by the Bank cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse or unreasonable as to become unsustainable. Therefore, the court on finding no merit in the present writ petitions, dismissed the same.
CASE TITTLE: Sri Puvvada Venkata Mohana Murali Krishna Murthy V The State of Andhra Pradesh,
CASE NO: W.P. No.4861 of 2018
DATED ON: .05.2024
QUORUM: DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ, R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The factual matrix leading to the present appeal in question is that, all petitioners were employees of the Prakasam District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, who retired at the age of 58 years having attained the age of superannuation and retired by the year 2017. The case of the petitioners is that they ought to have been retired on attaining the age of 60 years. With a view to support this fact, the petitioners stated that the Andhra Pradesh Legislature enacted the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014,
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, providing instructions for implementation of the said Act reiterating the fact that the provisions under the said section was applicable only to the categories mentioned therein and none else. Subsequently it was envisaged that the enhancement of age of superannuation would not be made applicable to the employees of the Public Sector Undertakings and Institutions listed in the IX and X Schedules of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 until the matter of division of assets and liabilities of the institutions between the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was settled and the allotment of the employees between the two states was finalized for those public section undertakings and institutions. It appears that the decision taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh enhancing the age of superannuation of employees of public sector undertakings under the administrative control of the Government from 58 to 60 years was kept in abeyance till such time as a policy was formulated in that regard. The stand of the Government is very clear, The Government Order dated 08.08.2017 permitting the employees to continue up to the age of 60 years has come into effect with effect from 2.6.2014. Therefore, all employees who have superannuated on account of attainment of age of 58 years on 02.06.2014 or thereafter are entitled to the protection of their service up to 60 years of age and naturally to all consequential benefits arising there from.” The petitioners herein, in the meantime, had approached the Bank for purposes of seeking an enhancement in their age of superannuation from 58 to 60 purportedly based upon the said Act, The Bank by virtue of its decision, resolved to enhance the age of superannuation of employees working in the Bank from 58 to 60 years from the month of June, 2017 onwards. Representations filed by the petitioners to give the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation retrospectively came to be rejected on the ground that the financial situation of the Bank was not such as would warrant the enhancement in the age of superannuation, In the present writ petition, the petitioners challenge the action of the Bank in not enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 retrospectively with effect from 02.06.2014 as was done in the case of institutions falling in Schedules IX and X of the Reorganisation Act, It is stated that the refusal of the Bank to grant such a retrospective benefit was arbitrary, illegal, unjust and discriminatory. Apart from this, it was urged that the Bank was discriminating between those, who retired post 02.06.2014 and those who are working as on 30.06.2017 and that the decision to enhance the age of superannuation only from the month of June, 2017 onwards was irrational.
LEGAL ISSUES:
- 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 or for that matter, the employees working for entities listed under Schedule IX and X of the Reorganisation Act?
- whether the petitioners can claim discrimination between the employees of those entities, which are listed under Schedule IX and X of the Reorganisation Act and the petitioners, who are employees of a Cooperative Credit Society?
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Sec 3(1) of Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014, lays that Every Government employee shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years.”
Section 115D of the APCS Act talks about the Special provisions applicable to Co-operative Credit Societies.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLEANT:
It petitioners through their counsel submitted that since the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was silent regarding the age of superannuation and that reference regarding the age of superannuation was only made in Rule 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, therefore, the policy as laid down in the said act was required to be followed.the counsel further urged that Section 115(D) of the APCS Act did not empower the Board of Management of the Bank to enhance the retirement age and that the decision had to be taken by the Government. The counsel further submitted that Section 115(D)(2)(iv) of the APCS Act although covered the matters of personnel policy, staffing, recruitment etc., but would not cover the matter of superannuation, which was covered under Section 28(6) of the APCS Rules, therefore, it was sought to be urged that the case of the petitioners could not have been ignored for grant of similar relief to the petitioners.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
The respondents,through their counsel Mr. C. Sumon, submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the said Act inasmuch as the petitioners were not Government employees as defined in Subsection (2) of Section 1 of the said Act. It was urged that the said Act was not applicable to the employees of the public enterprises and autonomous institutions. It was stated that the petitioners were employees working in the cooperative credit societies, which were autonomous in their functioning and that having considered the issue of enhancement in the age of superannuation, the Bank had taken a conscious decision to enhance the age of superannuation of their employees from 58 to 60 with effect from June, 2017, the counsel further urged that fixation of the age of superannuation was in the nature of a policy decision and there was nothing perverse about increasing the age of superannuation with effect from June, 2017 and that being a policy decision, ordinarily, the same could not be interfered by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction except on the grounds of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Counsel further stated that Chapter XIII-B of the APCS Act was a special provision applicable to the Cooperative Credit Societies, which, among others, introduced Section 115D (2) providing autonomy to the Cooperative Credit Societies. It was also stated that Section 115D was an overriding provision, which prevailed over Rule 28(6) of the APCS Rules.
COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
The court on hearing both the sides, considered that the petitioners can certainly be not called as Government employees, as they do not fall within the definition of „Government employees‟ as defined under the Act No.23 of 1984. If that be so, it is no longer res integra that employees of corporate bodies cannot demand as a matter of right to be treated similarly as employees of the State Government. The court further intend to agree with learned counsel for the respondents that Section 115D of the APCS Act, which is a special provision applicable to Cooperative Credit Societies, which was incorporated in Chapter XIII-B by the act, does give autonomy to such cooperative credit societies, among others, as regards personnel policy, staffing,etc on various other discussions, The court opined that the decision taken by the Government for those entities, which find a mention in Schedule IX and X, would not bind the district cooperative central banks, which are cooperative credit societies, who are independently required to take a call considering various factors including their financial capacity for purposes of determining as to whether there Batch should be an extension in the age of superannuation and if at all from which date. the court further opined that, the decision taken by the DCCB is in the nature of a policy decision, howerever the court opined that the decision to increase the age of superannuation from a prospective date i.e., June, 2017 has also been taken after taking into consideration the benefit of enhancement of superannuation from 58 to 60 years as also considering the financial impact on account of salary and other benefits, which the Bank would have to pay in view of such an increase. Therefore the court observed that decision taken by the Bank cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse or unreasonable as to become unsustainable. Therefore, the court on finding no merit in the present writ petitions, dismissed the same.
“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: Sowmya.R
