Case title: Sri Puvvada Venkata Mohana Murali Krishna Murthy & Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No.4861 of 2018
Coram: DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ, R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
Facts:
In this case, several retired employees of the Prakasam District Cooperative Central Bank Limited in Andhra Pradesh filed petitions regarding their retirement age. They claimed they should have retired at 60 years old, not 58, as they were entitled to under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Act of 2014. They argued that the Act stated government employees should retire at 60, and they fell under this category. The government, however, issued orders stating this rule applied only to specific categories, excluding them. There were subsequent legal battles, including one where the Supreme Court ordered the government to extend retirement age to 60 for certain employees. However, the bank rejected the retirees’ requests for retroactive extension, citing financial constraints.
Issues framed by Court:
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to retire at the age of 60, as per the provisions of the relevant Acts and Govt. Orders.
- Whether the actions of the bank and the Govt. are consistent with the judgements and directives issued by higher courts, particularly SC.
Legal Provision:
Section 3(1) of Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014: 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.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The appellants argued that they should have been allowed to retire at the age of 60 instead of 58. They base their argument on a law passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature in 2014, which stated that government employees should retire at 60. The appellants claim they fall under this category of employees. They also point to government orders issued in support of their position. They contend that the bank rejected their requests to extend their retirement age retroactively, citing financial difficulties, which they believe is unfair. Therefore, they are seeking legal intervention to ensure they receive the benefits they believe they are entitled to under the law.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The contentions of the respondents were centered around the points which stated that the petitioners were not entitled to retire at the age of 60, as claimed, based on the specific provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Act and relevant government orders. They asserted that the Act and subsequent orders only applied to certain categories of government employees, excluding the petitioners. Additionally, the respondents defended the bank’s decision to reject the petitioners’ requests for retroactive extension of retirement age, possibly citing financial constraints or the lack of legal obligation to do so. Moreover, their stance likely focused on interpreting the applicable laws and demonstrating why the petitioners’ claims for extended retirement age were not valid.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement:
The hon’ble court examined the previous orders and other legal battles related to retirement age. They found that while the Supreme Court had ordered the government to extend retirement age for certain employees, the bank rejected the retirees’ requests for retroactive extension, citing financial reasons. The court analyzed all these factors and ultimately ruled in favor of the employees, stating they were entitled to retire at 60, as per the state law. The bank’s decision to reject their requests for retroactive extension was deemed unlawful. This meant the retirees could continue working until they reached the age of 60, as they were entitled to under the law.
“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- Shramana Sengupta
