Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
These Writ Petitions Are Filed … vs C.R. Rangadhamaiah1 And The … on 28 April, 2026
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NOs.33830 & 26116 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the action of the
respondents in not extending the benefit of enhancement of the age
of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years, in not forwarding
proposals to the higher authorities for amendment of the service
regulations, and in not reinstating the petitioners into service till they
attain the age of 62 years.
2. Since both these writ petitions are filed by the same
petitioners and seek identical reliefs involving a common issue, they
are being disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioners submit that the Andhra Pradesh Public
Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2022, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on
31.01.2022 through Ordinance No.1 of 2022, enhanced the age of
superannuation from 60 years to 62 years by virtue of
G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated
31.01.2022.
NV ,J
WP_33830 & 26116_2022
2
4. The petitioners, who were working in different capacities in
APIIC, expected to continue in service till attaining the age of 62
years. However, the respondents issued proceedings dated
29.09.2023, retiring and relieving the petitioners from service with
immediate effect.
5. The petitioners further submit that, pursuant to the Andhra
Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation)
(Amendment) Act, 2014, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.147
dated 30.06.2014 enhancing the age of superannuation of State
Government employees from 58 years to 60 years. Thereafter, by
G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 27.06.2017, permission was granted for
enhancement of the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years for
employees working in institutions listed under Schedules IX and X
of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014, subject to approval by the
respective Boards of Directors/Management Committees after
considering their financial position and necessity.
6. According to the petitioners, various Government policies
relating to allowances and pensionary benefits applicable to
Government employees were also adopted by the respondent
NV ,J
WP_33830 & 26116_2022
3
institutions. Consequently, employees of the respondent
organization were continued in service till attaining the age of 60
years.
7. The petitioners contend that, though the State Government
subsequently enhanced the age of superannuation from 60 years to
62 years with effect from 01.01.2022, the same benefit was not
extended to employees of Public Sector Undertakings, State
Corporations and other State institutions covered under Schedules
IX and X of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014. It is alleged that
APIIC failed to take steps to pass any resolution by the Board and
did not forward proposals to the Government seeking enhancement
of the retirement age from 60 to 62 years. As a result, several
employees, including the petitioners, were compelled to retire on
attaining the age of 60 years. The petitioners therefore contend that
the action of APIIC is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of
Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. During the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners argued
that, as employees of the State Corporation, the petitioners are also
entitled to the benefit of enhanced superannuation age on par with
Government employees under the A.P. Public Employment
NV ,J
WP_33830 & 26116_2022
4
(Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, as amended by
Ordinance No.1 of 2022 and later Act No.4 of 2022, whereby the
retirement age was increased to 62 years. He further contended
that, in view of the interim directions of this Court, the services of
the petitioners are continued upto the age of 61 years, as such,
they are entitled to all service benefits upto 61 years and cannot be
restricted to 60 years, for which he also relied upon the judgments
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Railway Board vs.
C.R. Rangadhamaiah1 and The Commissioner, Karnataka
Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah2. On that basis, the petitioners
sought the reliefs prayed for in the writ petitions.
9. A detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State
contending that the Ordinance applies only to State Government
employees and employees covered under Act No.23 of 1984, and
not to employees of APIIC or similar organizations. The learned
Government Pleader submitted that enhancement of the retirement
age from 60 to 62 years in Corporations requires necessary
approvals, permissions, and amendments to the service regulations
by the respective Boards or Managing Committees. Until such
1
AIR 1997 SCC 3828
2
AIR 2007 SCC 3100
NV ,J
WP_33830 & 26116_2022
5
approvals and amendments are made, employees cannot claim the
enhanced retirement age as a matter of right.
10. The learned Standing Counsel for APIIC further submitted
that the question of enhancement of the age of superannuation is a
policy matter to be considered by the respective Boards of Directors
or Management Committees of such institutions. While taking such
a decision, the financial condition, administrative necessity, and
performance requirements of the institution must also be
considered. It was therefore argued that this Court cannot issue a a
writ of mandamus for enhancement of the petitioners’ retirement
age from 60 to 62 years without such consideration, and sought for
dismissal of the writ petitions.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
Government Pleader for Services-I, and the learned Standing
Counsel for APIIC, and perused the material available on record.
12. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners were employees of
APIIC and retired on attaining the age of 60 years. By virtue of
interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioners had continued in
service for nearly one year upto 61 years, after which they were
NV ,J
WP_33830 & 26116_2022
6
relieved from service through relieving orders issued by the
respondent Corporation.
13. In the counter affidavit, the respondents stated that Memo
dated 23.09.2022 was issued clarifying that enhancement of the
age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years applies only to
employees governed by the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of
Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, and not to employees of State
Corporations, undertakings and institutions. Based on the said
clarification, the respondent Corporation relieved employees who
had attained the age of 60 years.
14. Employees of Public Sector Undertakings or Corporations are
neither holders of posts connected with the affairs of the State nor
members of the State civil service. Since they are not governed by
rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India, they cannot be treated as persons appointed to public
services in connection with the affairs of the State, nor can they
claim the benefit of the provisions of the Act of 1984. Accordingly,
employees of Public Sector Undertakings and Corporations cannot
claim parity with Government servants as a matter of right, and their
NV ,J
WP_33830 & 26116_2022
7
service conditions, including retirement age and salary, are
governed independently by the respective organizations.
15. It is well settled that employees of Government Corporations
and Public Sector Undertakings constitute a separate class from
Government servants. Merely because certain benefits extended to
Government employees were adopted by the respondent
Corporation, the petitioners cannot claim automatic extension of
every Government policy, including enhancement of the age of
superannuation, unless the same is specifically adopted by the
competent authority of the Corporation. Whereas, the similar issue
fell for consideration in W.P.Nos.8225 of 2022 & batch of cases,
wherein an interim order was passed. The interim order passed in
the batch of writ petitions was assailed in W.A.Nos.1033 of 2022 &
batch, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
“40. This Court also finds that in the counter affidavit filed
the respondent No.1 had clearly specified that they had
sought a clarification from the Government of Andhra
Pradesh, whether the enhancement of age from 60 to 62
would apply to corporations, associations, societies etc., on
14.02.2022. In the counter, it is clearly mentioned that the
writ petition is also premature till the Government takes a
decision on the matter. Even in the past it is stated that the
Government issued separate orders for corporations and
NV ,J
WP_33830 & 26116_2022
8the societies for enhancement of age. Therefore, it is stated
that the petitioner’s case will be considered on similar lines
once the decision of the Government was obtained. The
learned Advocate General submitted that this decision is
spelt out by the memo, dated 23.09.2022, which clearly
states G.O.Ms.No.15 is applicable to the employees, who
are described in Section 1(2) of the Act only. It is also
clarified by the Government that certain PSUs, Corporations
etc., have enhanced the age to 62 without necessary
approval and sanction and therefore, remedial action is to
be taken by the very disciplinary action against this
respondent.”
16. Similarly, an interim order was passed by this Court in the
present writ petition. Assailing the interim order passed by this
Court, W.A.No.602 of 2023 was preferred, wherein the Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.602 of 2023, while allowing the writ
appeal on 05.05.2023, set-aside the interim order and remanded
the matter back with a request to consider the issue threadbare and
thereafter decide the matter on its own merits in accordance with
law.
17. The enhancement of the age of superannuation in respect of
employees of Public Sector Undertakings depends upon the
decision of the respective Board of Directors/Management
NV ,J
WP_33830 & 26116_2022
9
Committee, having regard to the financial viability, administrative
requirements, and service regulations of the institution concerned.
In the absence of any such decision by the competent authority, the
petitioners cannot seek a writ of mandamus as a matter of right.
18. Accordingly, the relief sought by the petitioners is rejected.
However, the respondent Corporation is directed to settle and pay
all consequential service benefits and admissible dues to the
petitioners for the period during which they actually worked
pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, in accordance
with law, within a reasonable time.
19. With the above directions, writ petitions are disposed of. No
costs.
20. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
also stand closed.
______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
Date: 28.04.2026
SP
NV ,J
WP_33830 & 26116_2022
10
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NOs.33830 & 26116 OF 2022
Date: 28.04.2026
W
SP
