Writ Petition No. 12803 of 1999 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 21 Apr 2010
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ petition No. 12803 of 1999
O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 26.05.1999 under which the petitioner was informed that he was due for retirement from service by the end of June, 1999 consequent upon attaining the age of 58 years is arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Work Inspector Grade-V in the 1st respondent-University. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was born on 01.07.1941 and that he had completed the age of 58 years on 01.07.1999. However, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that as per G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 18.03.1981 the work charged employees who belong to superior service alone shall retire at the age of 58 years, and the employees who belong to inferior service shall retire at 60 years. It is the case of the petitioner that the Work Inspector Grade-V is the last grade serve in the scale of Rs.1375-2375 and it has to be treated as inferior service as clarified by the 1st respondent-University its proceedings dated
30.04.1991. Thus, it is claimed that the petitioner shall be entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years. It is also claimed that the same procedure was adopted so far as two other Work Inspectors, namely K.Ramulu and Y.Kotaiah were concerned and they were continued in service up to the age of 60 years. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that as per A.P. Public Employment (Regulations of Age of Superannuation) Amendment Act, 1997, the work charged employees cannot be treated as workmen and they shall be treated as holder of civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that in terms of the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.25410 of 1991, G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 21.05.1996 was issued declaring the categories of Work Inspectors Grade-I to Grade-V as superior cadre since their duties were supervisory in nature. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly served with the impugned notice dated 26.05.1999 proposing to retire him from service on completion of 58 years. So far as other work charge employees mentioned by the petitioner, it is stated that they were continued up to the age of 60 years because they retired from service prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 21.05.1996. It has also been pleaded that vide proceedings dated
Operative part
08.04.1996, the University had adopted all Government Orders relating to work charged employees. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and having regard to the specific stand taken by the University in the counter affidavit that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 21.05.1996, all the five categories of Work Inspectors were declared as superior cadre, and in the absence of any material to contradict the plea of the respondents, I do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to continue in service up to 60 years. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Date: 21.04.2010 KLP ______________ G. ROHINI, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Age of Superannuation Amendment Act, 1997; Constitution of India — art. 311.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 21 Apr 2010. The bench was G ROHINI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.