APHC010005022026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3460]

MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION NO: 411/2026

Between:

1. T SARASWATHI, W/O. T.NAGESWARA RAO, AGED

ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. WORKING AS MULTIPURPOSE

WORKER (KITCHEN HELPER) AT MAHATMA JYOTHIBA

PHULE B.C. WELFARE SCHOOL AND JUNIOR

COLLEGE(GIRLS). NELLIMARLA, VIZIANAGARAM

DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS

SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF

FINANCE HR -IV FR AND LR, VELAGAPUDI,

AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, B.C. WELFARE

DEPARTMENT, VELAGA PUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT.

3. THE MAHATMA JYOTIBA PHULE ANDHRA PRADESH,

BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE RESIDENTIAL

INSTITUTION SOCIETY (MJPAPBCREIS), PLOT NO.9,

2

4TH LAND, UMASHANKAR NAGAR CHALASANI NAGAR,

KANURU BANDI, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH -

520 007. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

4. THE MAHATMA MAHATMA JYOTHIBA PHULE, B.C.

WELFARE SCHOOL AND JUNIOR COLLEGE(GIRLS),

NELLIMARLA, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS

PRINCIPAL

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the

High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue Writ or Direction

more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to

declare the memo issued by the respondent circular Memo No.

HR-IV dt.23.09.2022 is as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and

violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India as it is contrary to

G.O.Ms.No. 15 dt.31.01.2022 and as well as G.O.Rt.No. 68 dt.

10.05.2018 and consequently direct the respondents to continue

the petitioner as Multi Purpose (Kitchen Helper) in the 4th

respondent school till she attain the age of superannuation of 62

years as per G.O. Ms. No. 15 dated 31-01-2022 with all regular

benefits by setting aside the circular memo No. 1813129/ FIN01-

HR-212/2022-HR-IV dt.23.09.2022 issued by the 1st respondent

and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the

petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the

respondents to continue the petitioner as Multi Purpose (Kitchen

Helper) in the 4th respondent school till she attain the age of

superannuation of 62 years pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated

31-01-2022 by suspending the circular Memo No,1813129/

FINO1-HR-212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.09.2022 issued by the 1st

3

respondent pending disposal of the Writ petition before this

Hon'ble Court and pass s

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

2. GP FOR SERVICES II

WRIT PETITION NO: 413/2026

Between:

1. K.RAMAMOHANA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. WORKING AS

PRINCIPAL GRADE-1 AT MAHATMA JYOTHIBA PHULE

B.C. WELFARE SCHOOL AND JUNIOR COLLEGE

(BOYS) AT BETHAMCHERLA, NANDYAL, KURNOOL

DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS

SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF

FINANCE HR -IV FR AND LR, VELAGAPUDI,

AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, B.C. WELFARE

DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT-522237

3. THE MAHATMA JYOTIBA PHULE ANDHRA PRADESH,

BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE RESIDENTIAL

INSTITUTION SOCIETY (MJPAPBCREIS), PLOT NO.9,

4

4TH LAND, UMASHANKAR NAGAR CHALASANI NAGAR,

KANURU BANDI, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH -

520 007. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

4. THE MAHATMA JYOTIBA PHULE ANDHRA PRADESH,

BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL

AND JUNIOR COLLEGE (BOYS), BETHAMCHERLA,

NANDYAL KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P -518101

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the

High Court may be pleased topleased to issue Writ or Direction

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the

memo issued by the 1st respondent circular Memo No. HR-IV

dt.23.09.2022 is as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation

of Article 14 of Constitution of India as it is contrary to

G.O.Ms.No. 15 dt.31.01.2022 and as well as G.O.Rt.No. 68 dt.

10.05.2018 and consequently direct the respondents to continue

the petitioner as Principal Grade-1 in the 4th respondent school

till he attain the age of superannuation of 62 years as per G.O.

Ms. No. 15 dated 31-01-2022 with all regular benefits by setting

aside the circular memo No. 1813129/ FIN01-HR-212/2022-HR-

IV dt.23.09.2022 issued by the 1st respondent and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the

petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the

respondents to continue the petitioner as Principal Grade-1 in the

4th respondent school till he attain the age of superannuation of

62 years pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated 31-01-2022 by

suspending the circular Memo No.1813129/ FINO1 -HR-

212/2022-HR-IV dated 23.09.2022 issued by the 1®* respondent

pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Hon'ble Court

and pass

5

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

2. GP FOR SERVICES II

WRIT PETITION NO: 415/2026

Between:

1. B VENKATA RAMANA, , S/O. B.SAVADAIAH, AGED

ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC WORKING AS

SUPERINTENDENT, AT MAHATMA JYOTHIBA PHULE

B.C. WELFARE SCHOOL (BOYS), AT SRISAILAM,

KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS

SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF

FINANCE HR -IV FR AND LR, VELAGAPUDI,

AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, B.C. WELFARE

DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT.

3. THE MAHATMA JYOTIBA PHULE ANDHRA PRADESH,

BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE RESIDE NTIAL

INSTITUTION SOCIETY (MJPAPBCREIS), PLOT NO.9,

4TH LAND, UMASHANKAR NAGAR CHALASANI NAGAR,

KANURU BANDI, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH -

520 007. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

6

4. THE MAHATMA JYOTIBA PHULE ANDHRA PRADESH,

BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL

AND SRISAILAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P., REP. BY

ITS PRINCIPAL

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the

High Court may be pleased topleased to issue Writ or Direction

more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to

declare the memo issued by the 1st respondent circular Memo

No. HR-IV dt.23.09.2022 is as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional

and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India as it is contrary

to G.O.Ms.No. 15 dt.31.01.2022 and as well as G.O.Rt.No. 68 dt.

10.05.2018 and consequently direct the respondents to continue

the petitioner Superintendent in the 4threspondent school till he

attain the age of superannuation of 62 years as per G.O. Ms. No.

15 dated 31-01-2022 with all regular benefits by setting aside the

circular memo No. 1813129/ FINO1 -HR-212/2022-HR-IV

dt.23.09.2022 issued by the 1st respondent and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the

petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the

respondents to continue the petitioner as Superintendent in the

4th respondent school till he attain the age of superannuation of

62 years pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated 31-01-2022 by

suspending the No. 1813129/ FIN01 -HR-212/2022-HR-IV

datedcircular Memo 23.09.2022 issued by the 1st respondent

pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Hon'ble Court

and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY

7

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

2. GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following:

8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

W.P.Nos.411, 413 and 415 of 2026

COMMON ORDER:

The common question in all the three writ petitions is that

the Petitioners are seeking for continuation of their service till

attaining the age of 62 years in terms of the amendment brought

into the Andhra Pradesh Public Employee (Regulation of

Superannuation) Act, 1984 vide G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-

FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022.

2. The Petitioners are employees of Mahatma Jyothiba Phule

Andhra Pradesh Backward Class Welfare Residential Institution

Society (for brevity „MJPAPBCWRIS‟). It is stated that the

Society is under the control of the State Government and

pursuant to the Amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Public

Employee (Regulation of Superannuation) Act, 1984, the age of

superannuation was also enhanced to the employees of the

Respondent-Society vide G.O.Ms.No.60, School Education

(TRG) Department, dated 27.07.2017 and by virtue of the said

G.O., the Petitioners were continuing till the age of 60 years. It is

stated that the service regulations were framed by the State

9

Government vide G.O.Rt.No.68, Backward Classes Welfare (B)

Department, dated 10.05.2018. As the Government had issued

G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated

31.01.2022, amending Andhra Pradesh Public Employment

(Regulation of Superannuation) Act, 1984 by enhancing the age

of superannuation from 60 to 62 years for Government

employees, the Petitioners are seeking for continuation of their

services till the age of 62 years on par with Government

employees in view of Rule 14 thereof. As the Petitioners were

sought to be superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, the

present writ petitions were filed.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent-Society

(MJPAPBCWRIS), it is stated that the amendment brought in by

the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 is

not applicable to the employees of the Respondent-Society. It

was contended that the State Government issued Circular Memo

No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV, Finance Department,

dated 23.09.2022 stating that the enhancement of age of

superannuation is not applicable to employees other than the

Government employees. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot take

the benefit of the said amendment. It is further contended that

10

the State Government has general power of superintendence and

control over the administration of the Society and in the absence

of any specific consent from the State Government; the

Petitioners are not entitled for the enhancement of age of

superannuation. In the counter affidavit, reliance was also placed

on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in G.Rama

Mohan Rao and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh,

rep. By its Principal Secretary and Chairman, Agricultural

Marketing and Co-operative Department and another

1

,

wherein it was held that consent of the State Government was

required for enhancing age of superannuation.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the

Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in G.Rama

Mohan Rao’ case (1 supra) has no application to the facts of this

case as Rules and Service Regulations were issued in the year

2018 vide G.O.Rt.No.68, BC Welfare (B) Department, dated

10.05.2018 and the superannuation of the Petitioners should be

construed only with reference to the said Service Regulations and

none else. It is contended that once the Petitioners‟ age of

superannuation was placed on par with Government employees,

1

2017 (3) ALT 1

11

the contention of the Respondents that in spite of the said Rule,

the Petitioners are to be retired at the age of 60 years is

unsustainable. It is contended that the action of the Respondents

is not in consonance with Rule 14 of the service conditions and

unsustainable.

5. Learned standing counsel for the Respondent-Society

would submit that Rule 14 does not have automatic application

and consent of the State Government is required to continue the

employees of the Society till the age of 62 years. It is contended

that the amendment to the Act of 1984 has no application to the

employees of the Society unless the consent is given by the State

Government. Standing counsel further relied on Circular Memo

No.1813129/FIN01-HR/212/2022-HR-IV, Finance Department,

dated 23.09.2022 explaining the scope of the amendment to the

Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of

Superannuation) Act, 1984 and contended that the Petitioners are

entitled for the said benefit.

6. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned standing

counsel for the Society and Government Pleader for Services-I.

12

7. The issue that falls for consideration in these writ petitions

is, whether the Petitioners are entitled to be continued till the age

of 62 years on par with Government employees?.

8. The Government vide G.OMs.No.6, B.C. Welfare (B2)

Department, dated 02.04.2012 had issued orders for transfer of

45 BC Residential Schools from the Administrative control of

School Education Department to Backward Classes Welfare

Department with effect from the academic year 2012 -13.

Subsequently, by G.O.Ms.No.7, B.C. Welfare (B2) Department,

dated 11.04.2012, the new society was registered under the A.P.

Societies Registration Act, 2001 in the name of “Mahatma

Jyothiba Phule Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Welfare

Residential Educational Institutions Society” to manage the

transfer of 45 BC Residential Schools from the Andhra Pradesh

Residential Educational Institutions Society.

9. Initially, vide Government Memo No.476/B2/2011, dated

22.06.2012, the staff of the 45 BC Residential Schools, who were

regular employees of A.P. Residential Educational Institutions

Society were treated as „on deputation‟ till the Rules are finalized

by the State Government. Thereafter, Service Regulations were

13

formulated by the Society and were forwarded to the State

Government vide Lr.RC.No.1544/A/2014, dated 17.10.2017 and

the State Government after examination of the Rules approved

the Service Regulations vide G.O.Rt.No.68, dated 10.05.2018.

These Rules were framed under Rule 2 (vii) of the Rules and

Regulations of the Mahatma Jyothiba Phule Andhra Pradesh

Backward Classes Welfare Residential Educational Institutions

Society issued vide G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 11.04.2012.

10. These Rules were named as Mahatma Jyothiba Phule

Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Welfare Residential

Educational Institutions Society Service Regulations, 2018.

The Service Regulations specify Constitution, Method of

Appointment, Conditions of Appointment, Unit of Appointment,

Appointing Authority and other aspects relating to service

conditions. Rule 14 thereof specifies the application of

Government Rules and the same reads as under:

14) Application of Government Rules:

Notwithstanding anything contained in these

regulations, the Government shall have a general power of

superintendence and control over the administration of the

Society. Exercise of such power and control shall extend to

14

giving general instructions and directions to carry out the

policies of the Government, both Financial and

Administrative and such instructions and directions are

binding on the Society.

Where any particular regulation is found deficient and

insufficient or unless otherwise specified elsewhere in these

regulations, to meet the requirements and demands of any

situation in the interpretation and Service Rules 1996, The

Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules 1998, the Andhra

Pradesh General Subordinate Service Rules, the Andhra

Pradesh Last Grade Service Rules 1992 the Andhra

Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Andhra

Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1991 and the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules

and Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and

other Government orders issued from time to time shall be

applicable to all the categories of these Regulations. The

age of superannuation of all the above categories shall

be on par with the respective Government employees.

11. The highlighted part of the above extracted rule shows that

the age of superannuation of the categories covered under the

rules would be on par with that of respective Government

employees by generic reference. Without going into the catena of

judgements distinguishing the difference between legislation by

incorporation or reference, the Judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme

15

Court in Kerala SRTC v. K.O. Varghese

2

, explains the difference

in easy understandable language

30. The legislation by referable incorporation falls into

two categories. That is (i) where a statute by specific

reference incorporates the provisions of another statute

as at the time of adoption, and (ii) where a statute

incorporates by general reference. The law concerning a

particular subject has a genus. In the former case the

subsequent amendments made in the referred statute

cannot automatically be read into the adopting statute. But

in the second category, it may be presumed that the

legislative intent was to include all the subsequent

amendments also made from time to time in the generic

law on the subject adopted by the general reference.

12. The highlighted portion of Rule 14 as extracted above can

be termed to be legislation by reference and amendments to the

age of superannuation to the Government employees would

automatically apply to the employees of the Respondent-Society.

Therefore, it would not be open to the Respondent-State to

contend that the Petitioners are not entitled to continue till

attaining the age of 62 years as the legislation is by reference.

13. The Judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Harwindra

Kumar v. Chief Engineer, Karmik and others

3

would also be

relevant to the facts of this case. In the year 1975, Uttar Pradesh

2

(2003) 12 SCC 293

3

(2005) 13 SCC 300

16

Water Sewerage Act,1975 was enacted and Uttar Pradesh Jal

Nigam was established and by virtue of the same, the employees

of the Local Self-Government Engineering department became

employees of the Jal Nigam on same terms and conditions as

was in vogue to the employees till amendments were made as

per Section 37 thereof. Subsequently, Regulations were framed

in the year 1978, whereunder, the Regulation 31 provided for

parity vis-a-vis Government employees and employees of the Jal

Nigam. The Regulation 31 read as under;

Regulation 31

“31. Besides the provision made under these

Regulations, the pay and allowances, pension, leave,

imposition of penalty and other terms and conditions of

service shall be governed by such rules, regulations and

orders which are equally applicable to other serving

government servants concerned functioning in the State.”

14. After framing of the Regulations, the U.P State Government

enhanced the age of superannuation to 60 years by amending

U.P. Fundamental Rules. A general instruction was also issued

by the U.P. State Government that the benefit shall not be

extended to the employees of public sector undertakings. On a

clarification sought by the U.P. Jal Nigam Local Self-Government

Engineering Department, who became employees of the Jal

17

Nigam, the U.P. Government clarified that the benefit is not

extendable to those employees. In that context, the employees

directly approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court questioning the

same. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court taking note of Regulation 31

held that as long as Regulation 31 is not amended, the benefit of

enhanced age cannot be denied. The Paragraphs 9 and 10 read

as follows;

9. In the present case, as the Regulations have been framed

by the Nigam specifically enumerating in Regulation 31

thereof that the Rules governing the service conditions of

government servants shall equally apply to the employees of

the Nigam, it was not possible for the Nigam to take an

administrative decision acting under Section 15(1) of the Act

pursuant to the direction of the State Government in the

matter of policy issued under Section 89 of the Act and

directing that the enhanced age of superannuation of 60

years applicable to the government servants shall not apply

to the employees of the Nigam. In our view, the only

option for the Nigam was to make suitable amendment

in Regulation 31 with the previous approval of the State

Government providing thereunder the age of

superannuation of its employees to be 58 years, in case

it intended that 60 years which was the enhanced age of

superannuation of the State Government employees

should not be made applicable to the employees of the

Nigam. It was also not possible for the State

18

Government to give a direction purporting to act under

Section 89 of the Act to the effect that the enhanced age

of 60 years would not be applicable to the employees of

the Nigam treating the same to be a matter of policy nor

was it permissible for the Nigam on the basis of such a

direction of the State Government in the policy matter of

the Nigam to take an administrative decision acting

under Section 15(1) of the Act as the same would be

inconsistent with Regulation 31 which was framed by

the Nigam in the exercise of powers conferred upon it

under Section 97(2)(c) of the Act.

10. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that so

long as Regulation 31 of the Regulations is not

amended, 60 years which is the age of superannuation

of government servants employed under the State of

Uttar Pradesh shall be applicable to the employees of

the Nigam. However, it would be open to the Nigam with the

previous approval of the State Government to make suitable

amendment in Regulation 31 and alter the service conditions

of employees of the Nigam, including their age of

superannuation. It is needless to say that if it is so done, the

same shall be prospective.

15. On similar lines, as long as the Rules governing the

conditions of services of the Petitioners gives parity on par with

Government employees with reference to age of superannuation,

19

it is not open to the Respondents to retire the Petitioners and

other similarly placed on attaining the age of 60 years.

16. It would be relevant to mention Section 16 of the A.P

Housing Board Act, which reads as under:

16. Application of Services Rules and Certain other

rules.

Unless otherwise provided in this Act or prescribed

thereunder the provisions of the Service Rules for the time

being in force in the State relating to salaries, leave,

pensions, traveling allowance, retirements and all conditions

of service and the rules for the time being in force relating to

the conduct of Government servants and enquiries in to the

conduct and punishment of Government servants, shall

apply to the Officers and servants of the Board appointed

under Section 17.

17. This Rule was interpreted by a Division Bench of the

erstwhile Common High Court at Hyderabad in W.P.No.26495

and 26926 of 2015 dated 25.8.2015 and held that the above

provision springs to life on enhancement of age of

superannuation to Government employees and the employees of

the Housing Board would be entitled to the enhanced age of

superannuation automatically. In review petitions filed in similar

20

cases i.e W.P.No.25188 of 2018 and batch, the Division Bench of

this Court had dismissed the same on 19.11.2024.

18. Though the Division Bench of this Court in G.Rama Mohan

Rao’ case (1 supra) held that the consent of the State

Government is required, a distinction has to be noted vis-a-vis

bye-laws of State-owned Corporations framed by Corporations

themselves and where the State has a major stake and service

conditions which are statutory in nature as in this case. It would

not be correct to say that even in the face of statutory service

conditions framed with the approval of the State Government vide

G.O.Rt.No.68, dated 10.05.2018, the consent of State

Government would be required. The judgment of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court referred supra addresses this aspect and as long

as Rule 14 as highlighted remains in the present form in the Rule

book, the Respondents cannot deny enhanced age of

superannuation to the Petitioners.

19. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed and the

Petitioners are entitled to be continued till the age of 62 years.

No order as to costs.

21

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

Date: 02.02.2026

KLP