44 339 of 1983 K. Venugopal S.S Ray, P.P. Rao, V.M. Tarkuade and R Garg, V. Jogayya Sharma, M.P. Rao, Sudarsh Menon, T. V.S Churi, G. Narasimhulu, A. Subba Rao, M.K.D. Namboodiry, S. Guru Raj Rao, S. Markandeya, A.T.M. Sampath, D.K. Garg, Nikhil Chandra and A K Panda for the Petitioners.
1073 1100, 1117 19 1229 95, 142 1554, 1746 2140, 2155 2271, 2396 2459.
Finance and Planning.
N. Sinha, Attorney General, Anil B. Divan,B. Parthasarthi and K.R. Chaudhary for the Respondents.
On the very next day, that is, on April l0th Governor of Andhra Pradesh promulgated Ordinance No.
N. Rao for the State.
Miss A. Subhashini for the Union.
1198 1217, 1302 12, 1314 15, 1566 1641, 1140 70, 2360 95, 1643 1725,2272 2329,2152,2332,2339,2491,3486 89, 2498 2521, 2522, .533 74,2611 2638 and 2531 of 1983.
The rest of the averments i1 this affidavit are on the same lines as in the affidavit of Shri R. Partbasarathy.
5 of 1983 called the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment Regulation of Conditions of Service Ordinance.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C. J. In the elections held to the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh in January 1983, a new political party called Telugu Desam was swept to power.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India AND Writ Petition Nos.
4218,4571 and 5266 5280 of 1983 Under article 32 of the Constitution of India AND Transfer Case Nos.
The Ordinance was passed to regulate the recruitment and companyditions of service of persons appointed to Public Services and posts in companynection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the officers and servants of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
It is stated in that affidavit that the question of the age of superannuation was number referred to the one Man Pay Commission of Shri A. Krishnaswamy, which was appointed by the Andhra Pradesh Government on November 3, 1 977 that the recommendation made by the Pay Commission was casual and was number based on relevant criteria that as many as 12,04,008 educated youths were left without employment on September 30, 1979 as a result of the unwarranted increase in the age of superannuation from 55 to 58 that the number of unemployed youths had grown to 17,84,699 by December 31, 1982 and that, the age of retirement was reduced because it is the duty of the State, within the limits of its economic capacity and development to make effective provision to solve the unemployment problem.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
It assumed office on January 9, 1983.
On February 8, 1983 an Order G.O. Ms. No.
36 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh stating that it had decided to reduce the age of superannuation of all Government employees, other than in the last Grade Service, from 58 to 58 years.
The petitioners aver that the Government had number even companysidered the enormous delay which would be caused in the payment of pensionary benefits to employees A who were retired from service without any pre thought.
after which the age of retirement was increased to 58 in 1979, has numberrelevance to the present decision of the State to reduce the age of retirement that the fact that the average expectation of life is about 70 years is number a ground for increasing the age of retirement of Government employees that the general trend was for reducing the age of retirement that the Government of Kerala and Karnataka had reduce the age of retirement of their employees to 55, though it was earlier increased from 55 to 58 that in some States in India the age of retirement is 55 and number 58 the present decision was taken by the Government in order to fulfill its companymitment that it will take welfare measures in order to improve the lot of the companymon man, and.
The case of the petitioners as laid in the writ petitions is that there was numberbasis at all for reducing the age of retirement from 58 to 55 that the age of retirement was increased from 55 to 58 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by a numberification dated October 29, 1979 and numberhing had happened since then to justify reduction of the age of retirement again to 5 i that providing employment opportunities to the youths h Is numberrelevance on the question of fixing the age of retirement that the Government had exercised its power arbitrarily without having regard to factors which are relevant on the fixation of the age of retirement that the Government had acted unreasonably in number giving any previous numberice to the employees which would have enabled them to arrange their affairs on the eve of retirement that the Government was estopped from reducing the age of retirement to 55, since the employees had acted on the representation made to them in 1979 by increasing the age of retirement from 55 to 58 that as a result of the increase in the age of retirement from 55 to 58 years in 1976, a vested right had accrued to the employees, which companyld be taken away, if at all, only from future entrants to the Government service that retirement of experienced and mature persons from Government service will result in grave detriment to public services of the State and that, the decision of the Government is bad for a total number application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of the age of retirement, like increased longevity.
Another affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, after the rule nisi was issued in the writ petitions.
These writ petitions were filed by the Andhra Pradesh Government employees to challenge the aforesaid order and the numberifications on the ground that they violate Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution.
It is stated in that affidavit that the recommendation of the one Man Pay Commission appointed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
Two numberifications issued in exercise of the power companyferred by the Proviso to Article 309 read with Article 313 of the Constitution was appended to that order.
The affidavit asserts that the Government had reviewed the situation arising out of the enhancement of the age of retirement from 55 to 58 in 1979 and that it was revealed that on account of the enhancement of the age of retirement, the chances of promotion of the service personnel had deteriorated resulting in widespread frustration and unemployment.
By the companynter affidavit, the Government of Andhra Pradesh denied that any of the provisions of the Constitution were violated by the impugned decision to reduce the age of retirement.
Over 18,000 Government employees and 10,000 public sector employees were superannuated as a result of the order.
The relevant Fundamental Rules were amended by the first numberification, while the companyresponding rules of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules were amended by the second numberification.
By these numberifications, every Government servant, whether ministerial or number ministerial but number belonging to the last Grade Service, who had already attained the age of 55 years was to retire from service with effect from February 28, 1983.
The inconvenience alleged by the petitioners in the matter of payment of their pension and other retirement benefits was imaginary, since the Government was making extensive arrangements to disburse such benefits expeditiously.
The Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh was prorogued on April 9, 1983.
Speaking to the Government employees in the Secretariat premises the next day, the Chief Minister justified the reduction of the retirement age from 58 to 55 years on the ground that it had become necessary to provide greater employment opportunities to the youths.
particularly, in order to afford opportunities to qualified and talented unemployed youths whose number was increasing enormously due to expansion of educational facilities that the Government employees was stagnated in the lower positions due to the increase in the age of retirement from 55 to 58 and that, the present measure was intended to have a salutary effect on the creation of incentives to the deserving employees The affidavit says further that the question as regards the age of retirement is a pure question of Governmental policy affording numbercause of action to the petitioners to file the writ petitions.
A companynter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh by Shri R. Parthasarathy, Joint Secretary in the Finance Department of the State, at the stage of admission of the writ petitions.
Rule Nisi was issued on the writ petitions by this Court on February 25, 1983.
The affidavit is sworn by Shri A.K. Sharma, Deputy Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh.
