ORDER : 1. Since the issues raised in these Writ Petitions are connected, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. All the petitioners were appointed in the High Court for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh in various capacities and their details as to date of appointment, post in which they were first appointed, post they were holding as on 02.06.2014 (the date when the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh) and their respective dates of retirement/superannuation (at 58 years of age) are as under: S. No. W.P. No. Date of Appointment and Post in which Appointed Post being held as on 2.6.2014 Date of Superannuati on as per law prevailing on 2.6.2014 i.e. 58 years Date of Order issued notifying the date of retirement 1. 18901/2015 02.04.1981 Copyist Section Officer 30.06.2015 Roc. No. 1713/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 23.02.2015 2. 18906/2015 06.07.1984 Copyist Court Officer 30.06.2015 Roc. No. 1715/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 21.02.2015 3. 18907/2015 09.02.1976 Copyist Assistant Registrar 31.07.2015 Roc. No. 3896/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 16.04.2015 4. 18912/2015 10.10.1983 Assistant Assistant Registrar 30.06.2015 Roc. No. 1712/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 23.02.2015 5. 18913/2015 05.07.1984 Copyist Court Officer 31.08.2015 Roc. No. 4448/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 30.04.2015 6. 19381/2015 07.07.1984 Copyist Section Officer 30.06.2015 Roc. No. 1716/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 23.02.2015 7. 19382/2015 23.03.1985 Assistant Court Officer 30.06.2015 Roc. No. 1714/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 23.02.2015 8. 19457/2015 01.04.1981 Attender Assistant 30.06.2015 Roc. No. 1717/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 23.02.2015 9. 23875/2015 09.07.1984 Assistant Section Officer 31.07.2015 Roc. No. 3898/2015.Estt (Pen) dated 16.04.2015 3. The petitioners filed the Writ Petitions, before they were superannuated on the respective dates when each of them would complete 58 years of age. 4. In these Writ Petitions petitioners challenge the respective notices issued to each of them (referred to in Col. No. 6 of the Table given above) by the High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh indicating their respective dates of superannuation and contend that they are contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Superannuation) Act, 1984 and seek a direction to the said High Court to continue them in service till each of them attains the age of 60 years. The interim orders granted in June 2015 in these cases 5. The interim orders granted in June 2015 in these cases 5. In all these cases, a Division Bench presided over by the then Acting Chief Justice had passed an interim order on 30-06-2015 in W.P. Nos. 18901, 18906, 18907, 18912, 18913, 19381, 19382 and 19457 of 2015 and on 31.07.2015 in W.P. No. 23875 of 2015 that retirement of each of the petitioners shall be subject further orders to be passed in the Writ Petitions. The case of the petitioners 6. In brief, the contentions of the petitioners are: (i) they are all members of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service and were governed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1975 framed by the Chief Justice of the said High Court in exercise of powers conferred by Article 229 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India. (ii) as per Rule 21(1) of the said Rules, the ‘Fundamental Rules, the Subsidiary Rules thereunder, Civil Services Regulation and other Rules applicable to employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall govern the members of the Service. (iii) that the age of superannuation of employees is governed by the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 and it had prescribed in Section 3(i), the age of superannuation of a Government employee not being a workman and not belonging to the last grade service, as 58 years. (iv) that the composite State of Andhra Pradesh had been bifurcated into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 02.06.2014. (v) that the Legislature of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh had enacted Act 4 of 2014 on 27.06.2014 amending the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 increasing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years for State Government employees. (vi) consequently, w.e.f. 27.06.2014, the members of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service are entitled to continue in service upto 60 years. Therefore, they contend that the action of the High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in proposing to retire them on attaining the age of 58 years is illegal and they should all be permitted to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. 7. Therefore, they contend that the action of the High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in proposing to retire them on attaining the age of 58 years is illegal and they should all be permitted to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. 7. The counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in K. Balarama Raju vs. Union of India, 2021 (1) ALD 372 (DB) and contend that this Court had considered identical issues in that case and the ratio of the said judgment should also be applied to the petitioners in these cases. Events after filing of these Writ Petitions 8. In all these Writ Petitions, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh was impleaded as 1st respondent, but in view of the creation of a separate High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 01-01-2019 and the re-designation of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh as High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana, suo-motu this Court had impleaded High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh as respondents in all the Writ Petitions. 9. Initially, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh had filed a counter-affidavit in all these matters in July, 2015. 10. Later in March, 2021, the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh filed a separate counter-affidavit. The stand of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana 11. Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana contended that the judgment in K. Balarama Raju (supra) has been stayed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 11740 of 2020 on 13.10.2020 and S.L.P. (C) No. 1105 of 2021 on 22.01.2021, that the matters are still pending before the Supreme Court and this Court should defer the hearing of these cases till the Supreme Court decides the said cases. 12. 12. She also adopted the counter-affidavit filed in July, 2015 by the then High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. 13. It is the contention of the High Court for the State of Telangana that the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh, having been bifurcated into the States of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, any change in Rules brought about thereafter by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh such as Act 4 of 2014 enacted on 27.06.2014 will not apply to the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana. 14. According to it, the amendment brought about by only one State i.e. the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh would not automatically apply to the employees of the High Court which was the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and so petitioners are not entitled to be considered for continuance in service upto 60 years. 15. It contends that retiring the petitioners from service on their attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years is in accordance with the law and is valid and only in respect of employees of District Units which, after bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh on 02.06.2014, fall in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, the enhanced age of 60 years for superannuation was made applicable through a High Court Circular on the administrative side but it will not apply to persons working in the composite High Court. 16. It is contended that the enhanced age of superannuation would affect the salary and pension of employees and any rule enhancing the same has to be specifically made applicable to employees of the High Court by a specific order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, that a Committee of Judges was constituted by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice on the issue and the decision of the Committee is awaited. Stand of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh 17. It is contended that though the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated on 02.06.2014, the High Court at Hyderabad remained common High Court for both the States and the bifurcation of employees of the combined High Court was not taken up until 01.11.2018. 18. Stand of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh 17. It is contended that though the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated on 02.06.2014, the High Court at Hyderabad remained common High Court for both the States and the bifurcation of employees of the combined High Court was not taken up until 01.11.2018. 18. It is stated that on that day, options were given to employees of the combined High Court to opt for either the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh (which came into existence w.e.f. 01.01.2019) or the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana (which came into existence w.e.f. 01.01.2019). 19. It is contended that even if date of giving options is to be taken as 02.06.2014, mere giving of options would not entitle the employees to any benefits until the actual date of bifurcation of the combined High Court. 20. According to the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, petitioners cannot claim to be working in the said High Court and consequently cannot claim the benefits of Act 4 of 2014, which increased the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years and they were rightly retired on attaining the age of 58 years in 2015. 21. It is stated that the petitioners are receiving pension from the State of Telangana without demur or objection. 22. It is contended that the provisions of Section 77 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 cannot be invoked before formation of separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh. 23. It is also contended that as far as the High Court is concerned, the ‘appointed day’ under the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 has no significance. 24. It is admitted that after establishment of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2019, on the basis of a representation of employees of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and on the basis of a Full Court resolution, a request was made to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to apply the age of superannuation applicable to State Government employees of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh to the employees of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh and that accordingly G.O.Ms. No. 24, Laws Department dated 29.01.2019 was issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh extending the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years to the existing employees of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2019. 25. It is contended that since the petitioners were not on the rolls of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as on 01.01.2019, the question of calling for their options and continuing them in service upto 60 years, does not arise. 26. According to the said High Court, the employees of the common High Court were governed by Service Rules framed in 2017, that there was no specific provision therein regarding age of superannuation, that Rule 21 makes applicable Fundamental Rules to employees of common High Court. 27. It is stated that F.R. No. 56 of Fundamental Rules deals with retirement, but it was omitted by the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, which was later amended by Act 4 of 2014 enacted by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh enhancing age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. 28. It is stated that if the contention of petitioners is accepted and if options of employees of common High Court at Hyderabad for both States had been obtained from all employees who were in service as on 02.06.2014, the consequent bifurcation of employees and applying the Service Rules of 2017, would create pandemonium. 29. It is further stated that for instance if there are 1000 employees in the common High Court as on 02.06.2014, suppose options were called for and 500 employees gave option for each High Court, since the actual bifurcation of employees depends upon the notification issued by the His Excellency the President of India, the above options obtained will not serve any practical utility but create disorder, in the sense that while employees who have given option for Andhra Pradesh, claim their age of superannuation at 60 years and their counter-parts who gave option for Telangana will have to retire at the age of 58 years as there was no corresponding amendment brought to the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 by the Telangana Government; and thereby, in the common High Court, one set of employees will enjoy service for two more years than their counter-parts. 30. 30. It is stated that this anomalous situation will create chaos in promotions also because the promotions are affected in the interregnum period on the basis of common seniority. For instance, if an employee who opted for Andhra Pradesh got promotion to a cadre, he will not retire till completion of 60 years. If a person who is below him opted for Telangana, he may retire in the meanwhile on completion of 58 years and therefore, calling for options with reference to the Appointed Day i.e. 02.06.2014 without having the physical bifurcation of the High Court, will lead to multifarious issues etc. 31. It is claimed that if petitioners’ contentions are accepted, it would lead to disastrous results and that the legal representatives of deceased employees who retired in the interregnum period, may also claim that those employees should be deemed to be employees of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh after 02.06.2014, since their options were not called for and demand compassionate appointment and fixation of pension. 32. It is stated that on 01.11.2018 options were called for and Section 77 of the Act did not require options to be called for from all employees who were working on or before 02.06.2014. 33. It is contended that there is no obligation on the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to pay any amount to the employees who retired between 02.06.2014 and 01.01.2019. CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT 34. We have noted the contentions of both sides. 35. The questions which arise for consideration are: (a) Would the fact that petitioners are receiving pension from the State of Telangana on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years in 2015, disentitle them to relief in these Writ Petitions? (b) Whether the ‘appointed day’ in the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 applies to the High Court of Judicature for the combined State of Andhra Pradesh and its employees as on 01.06.2014? (c) Whether the provisions of Section 77 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 could not have been invoked before the formation of separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh i.e. before 01.01.2019 as is contended by the respondents?” (d) Whether on the ground of pendency of the SLP (C) No. 11740 of 2020 and SLP (C) No. 1105 of 2021, this Court should defer hearing of these cases? (e) Whether the amendment to Age of Superannuation brought about by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh vide Act 4 of 2014 w.e.f. 27.06.2014 can be applied to the employees of the High Court at Hyderabad for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana who were in service on 02.06.2014 and thereafter? (f) Whether the petitioners should have been allowed to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years, (which was the age of superannuation fixed by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh by way of Act 4 of 2014 w.e.f. 27.06.2014)? Consideration by the Court 36. Before we deal with the above points, it is important to note the following events: 02.06.2014 By virtue of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. This is the ‘appointed day’ as per Section 2 (a) of the Act. 02.06.2014 On account of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the said Act, the High Court at Hyderabad became the common High Court for the both the successor States. 27.06.2014 The residuary State of Andhra Pradesh amended, by Act 4 of 2014, A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 and enhanced the age of superannuation for its State Government employees from 58 years to 60 years w.e.f. 27.06.2014. 01.11.2018 Guidelines were framed by the common High Court at Hyderabad for both the successor States for allocation of employees between the High Court for the State of Telangana and the High Court for Andhra Pradesh. 01.01.2019 Creation of High Court of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati by virtue of Notification dated 26.12.2018 issued by His Excellency President of India. 01.01.2019 The combined High Court at Hyderabad for both the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh became the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana only. 29.01.2019 State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 25 extending benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation given to employees of State Government from 58 years to 60 years to the employees of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 37. Having noticed the above events, we shall now consider the points framed by us. Point (a): 38. 29.01.2019 State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 25 extending benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation given to employees of State Government from 58 years to 60 years to the employees of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 37. Having noticed the above events, we shall now consider the points framed by us. Point (a): 38. We shall first consider Point (a) which is as under: “(a) Would the fact that petitioners are receiving pension from the State of Telangana on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years in 2015, disentitle them to relief in these Writ Petitions?” 39. We have already pointed out that all the petitioners in these cases had filed these cases before they attained the age of superannuation of 58 years in the year 2015. 40. In all these cases interim orders were passed by a Division Bench presided over by the then Acting Chief Justice on 30.06.2015 and 31.07.2015 that “retirement of the petitioners shall be subject to further orders to be passed in these writ petitions.” 41. So the above interim orders protect the right of the petitioners to continue in service upto the age of 60 years and in the event they can make out a case for grant of such relief or any lesser relief in these Writ Petitions, the same cannot be denied to them. 42. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioners had been retired from service by the High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years in 2015 and were being paid pension thereafter by the State of Telangana, does not affect their claims in these Writ Petitions and will not operate as any estoppel against them. 43. This point is accordingly answered against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners. Point (b) and (c): 44. We shall now consider Point (b) which is as under: “(b) Whether the ‘appointed day’ in the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 applies to the High Court of Judicature for the combined State of Andhra Pradesh and its employees as on 01.06.2014?” (c) Whether the provisions of Section 77 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 could not have been invoked before the formation of separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh i.e. before 01-01-2019 as is contended by the respondents?” 45. These points are interrelated and so they are being taken up together. 46. We shall refer to the relevant provisions of the Act here for better understanding: “PART-IV HIGH COURT 30. High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad to be common High Court till establishment of High court of Andhra Pradesh: (1) On and from the appointed day: (a) the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall be the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh till a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh is constituted under Article 214 of the Constitution read with section 31 of this Act. (b) the Judges of the High Court at Hyderabad for the existing State of Andhra Pradesh holding office immediately before the appointed day shall become on that day the Judges of the common High Court. (2) The expenditure in respect of salaries and allowances of the Judges of the common High Court shall be allocated amongst the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana on the basis of population ratio. 31. High Court of Andhra Pradesh: (1) Subject to the provisions of section 30, there shall be a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the High Court of Andhra Pradesh) and the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall become the High Court for the State of Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the High Court at Hyderabad). (2) The principal seat of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh shall be at such place as the President may, by notified order, appoint. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Judges and division courts of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh may sit at such other place or places in the State of Andhra Pradesh other than its principal seat as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, appoint. 77. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Judges and division courts of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh may sit at such other place or places in the State of Andhra Pradesh other than its principal seat as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, appoint. 77. Provisions relating to other services: (1) Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving on substantive basis in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Telangana: Provided that every direction under this sub-section issued after the expiry of a period of one year from the appointed day shall be issued with the consultation of the Governments of the successor States. (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in sub-section (1) shall be finally allotted for service, after consideration of option received by seeking option from the employees and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect: Provided that even after the allocation has been made, the Central Government may, in order to meet any deficiency in the service, depute officers of other State services from one successor State to the other: Provided further that as far as local, district, zonal and multi-zonal cadres are concerned, the employees shall continue to serve, on or after the appointed day, in that cadre: Provided also that the employees of local, district, zonal and multi-zonal cadres which fall entirely in one of the successor States, shall be deemed to be allotted to that successor-State: Provided also that if a particular zone or multi-zone falls in both the successor States, then the employees of such zonal or multi-zonal cadre shall be finally allotted to one or the other successor States in terms of the provisions of this sub-section. (3) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of sub-section (2) to a successor State shall, if he is not already serving therein, be made available for serving in the successor State from such date as may be agreed upon between the Governments of the successor States or, in default of such agreement, as may be determined by the Central Government: Provided that the Central Government shall have the power to review any of its orders issued under this section.” 47. It is the contention of the High Courts for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh that the ‘appointed day’ of 02.06.2014 specified in the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014, has no significance as regards the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad as on 01.06.2014 and that it is not the ‘appointed day’ as far as the High Court is concerned. 48. They imply that 01.01.2019, the date when separate High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh was established, ought to be taken as the appointed day. 49. This contention was considered by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us was a Member (MSRJ) in K. Balarama Raju and others (supra). 50. This Court held in K. Balarama Raju and Others (supra) that if the interpretation sought to be placed by the respondents is accepted, it would lead to the following several serious anomalies: (a) If the ‘appointed day’ as regards the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and for purpose of allocation of employees of the combined High Court for both States is to be taken as 01.01.2019 and not as 02.06.2014, then from 01.01.2019 only, as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 30 of the Act, the High Court at Hyderabad would become the common High Court for both the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and it would continue to be the common High Court after 01.01.2019 as well. If this happens, then what would happen to the separate High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh which was constituted on 01.01.2019? It would be a nullity and cannot function as such. If this happens, then what would happen to the separate High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh which was constituted on 01.01.2019? It would be a nullity and cannot function as such. (b) Paradoxically, if the constitution of separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi from 01.01.2019 is taken as an accepted fact, then, on 01.01.2019, there cannot be a common High Court for both States because both events cannot co-exist and could not have happened. (c) A common High Court at Hyderabad and a separate High court for the state of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi at the same time from 1.1.2019 would be an absurdity. (d) That in the decision of the Supreme Court in Telangana Judges Association and Another vs. Union of India, 2019 (1) ALD 7 (SC) : AIR 2018 SC 5510 the Supreme Court had held in Para 31 that when guidelines dated 08.07.2017 were framed by the common High Court at Hyderabad for both States for allocation of members of the District Judiciary of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the same were admittedly framed taking 02.06.2014 as the ‘appointed day’ and there cannot be ‘different’ appointed days for members of District Judiciary and employees of common High Court at Hyderabad and it would be a discriminatory. It held that just as members of District Judiciary are under the control of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, even officers and staff members/employees attached to the High Court work under the control of the High Court under Article 229 of the Constitution of India; and there is no valid reason why both sets of employees of the common High Court at Hyderabad should be treated differently. It also pointed out that neither the High Court for the State of Telangana nor the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh explained why both sets of employees under the control of the same High Court should be treated differently. It also pointed out that neither the High Court for the State of Telangana nor the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh explained why both sets of employees under the control of the same High Court should be treated differently. (e) It was also held that employees of the common High Court would fall within the scope of the phrase ‘persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State’ and also the phrase ‘a person who is a member of a Civil Service of a State’ as used in Article 310 and 311 of the Constitution as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Pradyat Kumar vs. Chief Justice of Calcutta, AIR 1956 SC 285 that when Sub-Section (2) of Section 77 mentions about allocation of ‘employees serving on substantive basis in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh’ it will cover not only employees of the State Government, but also employees of the High Court for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh as on 01.06.2014 and when the Union of India framed guidelines on 29.10.2014 for final allocation of State cadre employees (other than All India Services officers), it took 02.06.2014 as the ‘appointed day’ and so it is not permissible to interpret the term ‘appointed day’ used in Section 77 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 while dealing with employees of the High Court at Hyderabad for both the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh as 01.01.2019 and not as 02.06.2014, because employees of the High Court are also like employees of State Government and are persons ‘employed in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh’ and the ‘appointed day’ therefore has to be one and the same for both of them. (f) It held that Sub-Section (2) of Section 77 states that “as soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in Sub-Section (1) shall be finally allotted for service......” Therefore, the allocation of employees of the High Court can only be ‘after’ the appointed day. But, it is an admitted fact that not only were the Guidelines for allocation framed on 01.11.2018 prior to 01.01.2019, but even the allocation of the employees of the High Court occurred before 01.01.2019, i.e. on 31.12.2018. Consequently, the proceedings Roc. No. 12706/Estt./2018 dated 31.12.2018 issued by the High Court giving list of employees allocated to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati and the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad with effect from 01.01.2019, would have no validity if the ‘appointed day’ is taken as 01.01.2019, because allocation was done on 31.12.2018 ‘before’ 01.01.2019 and not ‘after’ 1.1.2019. The guidelines framed can be relied on by the respondents only if the ‘appointed day’ is taken 2.6.2014 because then the framing of guidelines and allocation would then be after the appointed day. So the ‘appointed day’ for the aforesaid reasons, has to be 02.06.2014 only, in the context of Section 77 of the Act, while dealing with employees of the High Court at Hyderabad for both the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and their allocation. 51. We follow the decision in K. Balarama Raju and Others (supra) and the above reasoning mentioned therein and reject the contention of the High Courts for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh that the ‘appointed day’ of 02.06.2014 specified in the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014, has no significance as regards the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad as on 01.06.2014 and that it is not the ‘appointed day’ as far as the said High Court is concerned. 52. We are also of the opinion that certain practical difficulties referred to in the counter-affidavit of High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati cannot be of any assistance to it because the mandate contained in Section 77 of the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014, (to make allocation of employees ‘as soon as may be after the appointed day’) being the law made by Parliament, has to be given effect to and the operation of the said law cannot be kept in abeyance whatever be the practical difficulties which might arise from the implementation of the said law. 53. 53. It cannot be presumed that the Parliament was unaware of these practical difficulties; and if it still made a law which creates such difficulties, the Court cannot, by way of interpretation, supply the solution to the difficulties by: (i) Either changing ‘the appointed day’ from 2.6.2014 to 1.1.2019. (ii) permitting the combined High Court to initiate steps for allocation of the employees on 1.11.2018, long after 2.6.2014, the ‘appointed day’ by ignoring the words ‘as soon as may be after the appointed day’ used in sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Act (and interpreting them as ‘doing the allocation as per it’s convenience’). 54. It is not the province of this Court to provide for any casus omissus i.e. the Court cannot aid the legislature’s defective drafting of a law or add and amend or, by construction, make up deficiencies which are left in it. 55. In Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 14 SCC 663 , the Supreme Court reiterated this principle in the following terms: “36.......It is also a settled proposition of law that when the language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, no question of construction of a statute arises for the Act speaks for itself as held in State of U.P. vs. Vijay Anand Maharaj, AIR 1963 SC 946 . 37. In Crawford vs. Spooner, (1846-1849) 6 MOO PC 1, which has been referred to in Nalinakhya Bysack vs. Shyam Sunder Haldar, AIR 1953 SC 148 , it has been held that: “9.......the Court cannot.....aid the legislature’s defective phrasing of an Act or add and amend or, by construction, make up deficiencies which are left in the Act.” (Crawford case, SCC Online PC) In British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Itbar Singh, AIR 1959 SC 1331 while construing Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, this Court refused to add the word “also” after the words “on any of the following grounds.” It was observed that the rule of interpretation does not permit the Court to do so unless the section, as it stands, is meaningless or is of doubtful meaning. While interpreting Section 621-A(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 in V.L.S. Finance Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 278 this Court held that the Court must avoid rejection or addition of words and resort to that only in exceptional circumstances. 38. While interpreting Section 621-A(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 in V.L.S. Finance Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 278 this Court held that the Court must avoid rejection or addition of words and resort to that only in exceptional circumstances. 38. The words cannot be read into an Act, unless the clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself. It is one of the principles of statutory interpretation that any matter which should have been, but has not been provided for in a statute, cannot be supplied by courts, as to do so will be legislation and not construction as held in Hansraj Gupta vs. Dehra Dun-Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. AIR 1933 PC 63 , Kamalaranjan Roy vs. Secretary of State, AIR 1938 PC 281 and Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs. N. Narasimahaiah, (2008) 5 SCC 176 . The court cannot supply casus omissus.” (Emphasis supplied) 56. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the term ‘appointed day’ occurring in Section 77 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 has the same significance in relation to employees of the High Court of Judicature of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh as on 01.06.2014, as it has in relation to the State Government employees of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh as on 2.6.2014. 57. Therefore we hold on point (b) that the ‘appointed day’ in the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 applies to the High Court of Judicature for the combined State of Andhra Pradesh and its employees as on 01.06.2014 and the plea of both the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati that as far as the High Court is concerned, the ‘appointed day’ under the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 has no significance, is rejected. 58. Now we shall consider Point (c) which states: “(c) Whether the provisions of Section 77 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 could not have been invoked before the formation of separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh i.e. before 01.01.2019 as is contended by the respondents?” 59. 58. Now we shall consider Point (c) which states: “(c) Whether the provisions of Section 77 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 could not have been invoked before the formation of separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh i.e. before 01.01.2019 as is contended by the respondents?” 59. It is the contention of both the High Courts for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh that implementation of Section 77 of the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014 was not possible before the formation of a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh on 01.01.2019 and that the High Court at Hyderabad for both the States acted properly in framing guidelines on 01.11.2018 only in respect of those employees who were working in the said High Court as on the date those guidelines were made and those who may be appointed thereafter into such service. 60. Section 77 of the Act, has already been extracted supra. To the extent it is relevant for our purposes, it states: “77. Provisions relating to other services: (1) Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving on substantive basis in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Telangana. (2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State to which every person referred to in sub-section (1) shall be finally allotted for service, after consideration of option received by seeking option from the employees and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect.....” (Emphasis supplied) 61. We may state that theoretically, there was no impediment to frame guidelines for allocation of employees of the High Court of Judicature for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, as soon as may be after 02.06.2014, since anyway creation of a separate High Court of Judicature for the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh was contemplated in Section 30 and 31 of the Act and would have happened as and when the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh decided to have its own High Court exclusively and His Excellency The President of India issued the notification constituting the said Court. 62. A Division Bench of this Court in G. Naganna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2020) 5 ALT 120 (DB) : MANU/TL/0243/2020, held that the language of sub-section (2) of Section 77 confers on ‘every employee’ who, before the appointed day, is serving on substantive basis in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh, a right to seek allocation to one or the other successor State. 63. Thus all employees in the common High Court at Hyderabad as on 2.6.2014 form ‘a single class’ and have entitlement for allocation to either of the High Court of Telangana or the proposed High Court of Andhra Pradesh as soon as may be after 2.6.2014, the appointed day. 64. Section 80 (1) of the Act states: “80. (1) The Central Government may, by order, establish one or more Advisory Committees, within a period of thirty days from the date of enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, for the purpose of assisting it in regard to: (a) the discharge of any of its functions under this Part. (b) the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the provisions of this Part and the proper consideration of any representations made by such persons....” (Emphasis supplied) 65. When all employees of the composite High Court at Hyderabad as on 02.06.2014 form a ‘single class’ exclusion of persons who retired prior to 01.11.2018 from the process of allocation and depriving them of an opportunity to give options for allocation, without any valid differentia, is violative of Article 14 and the mandate of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 80 to frame guidelines ensuring that they are fair and equitable treatment is given to all persons affected by the provisions of the Part VIII. 66. 66. In our opinion, acceptance of the stand taken by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh would defeat the will of the Parliament contained in Section 77(2) of the Act which mandates that the employees be allocated to one or the other successor State ‘as soon as may be’ after the appointed day of 02.06.2014, which cannot be allowed to happen. 67. It may be that there were genuine reasons why the guidelines could not be framed for allocation of employees of the High Court immediately after 02.06.2014, but that cannot mean that the said delay should defeat the right conferred on the petitioners to get ‘fair and equal treatment’ like other employees who were in service as on 01.11.2018 and get opportunity to opt for the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as and when it is constituted. 68. Therefore, the plea of the State of Andhra Pradesh that the provisions of Section 77 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 were not capable of being invoked before the formation of separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh i.e. before 01.01.2019 cannot be accepted and this point is also answered against the respondents. Point (d) 69. We shall now consider Point (d) which is as under: “Whether on the ground of pendency of the SLP (C) No. 11740 of 2020 and SLP (C) No. 1105 of 2021, this Court should defer hearing of these cases?” 70. No doubt the decision in K. Balarama Raju (supra) has been challenged by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana in S.L.P. (C) No. 117040 of 2020 and by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in S.L.P. (C) No. 1105 of 2021 and the order passed therein has been stayed by the Supreme Court. 71. However, it is not known when the said S.L.P. might by decided finally by the Supreme Court. 72. The petitioners in the instant cases had filed them in 2015, almost 6 years back and even by then they were about to attain the age of 58 years. They are already Senior Citizens as on date and are of advanced age. 73. 72. The petitioners in the instant cases had filed them in 2015, almost 6 years back and even by then they were about to attain the age of 58 years. They are already Senior Citizens as on date and are of advanced age. 73. Therefore we do not see any reason, in the absence of any direction from the Supreme Court to this Court not to decide these cases, to adjourn them for an unknown future date and prolong the agony of the petitioners. 74. It is also settled law that where a Court of Appeal stays the further implementation, as between the parties, of the operative portion of the judgment rendered by the primary court, the ratio of the decision rendered by the primary court cannot be said to be wiped off. 75. In the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. P. Gautam Kumar and Others, 2012 (6) ALD 458 (DB) a Division Bench of this Court presided over by Hon’ble Sri. Justice G. Raghuram and one of us considered the effect of grant of an interim order by the Supreme Court. After referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kishor Kirtilal Mehta and Others vs. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 21 and State of Assam vs. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha, (2009) 5 SCC 694 laid down the following principles: “Para No. 63: (i) mere grant of stay by the Supreme Court in an appeal would not per se require the High Court, in the matter pending before it to draw inferences on merits (of the judgment appealed), from the fact that a stay was granted. (ii) the High Court in the above circumstances must decide the matter on merits uninfluenced by the fact that an interim stay was granted by the Supreme Court. (iii) a precedent is the principle contained in a judicial decision, which forms the authoritative and binding element termed as the ratio decidendi. An interim order, which neither finally nor conclusively decides an issue, nor spells out reasons for the interim order, constitutes no precedent and affords no guidance to the lower court, on the further course of adjudication. (iv) even where reasons are assigned (by the Supreme Court) in support of such non-final interim order containing prima-facie findings, these are only tentative. An interim order, which neither finally nor conclusively decides an issue, nor spells out reasons for the interim order, constitutes no precedent and affords no guidance to the lower court, on the further course of adjudication. (iv) even where reasons are assigned (by the Supreme Court) in support of such non-final interim order containing prima-facie findings, these are only tentative. Interim directions issued on the basis of such prima-facie findings are temporary arrangements to preserve the status quo till the matter is finally decided, to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or fait accompli before the final hearing.” 76. Therefore, in our opinion, mere grant of stay by the Supreme Court in the S.L.P. (C) No. 117040 of 2020 and in S.L.P. (C) No. 1105 of 2021 of the order passed by this Court in K. Balarama Raju and others (supra) would not mean that this High Court, in these matters pending before it is prevented to draw inferences on merits (of the judgment appealed), from the fact that a stay was granted. 77. So, we decline to accept the request of the learned counsel for High Court of Telangana that we ought to defer the hearing of these cases by awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court in the above SLP. 78. Point (d) is answered accordingly. Points (e) and (f) 79. These two points are interconnected and so we shall discuss them together. 80. Point (e) and (f) state: (e) Whether the amendment to Age of Superannuation brought about by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh vide Act 4 of 2014 w.e.f. 27.06.2014 can be applied to the employees of the High Court at Hyderabad for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana who were in service on 02.06.2014 and thereafter? (f) Whether the petitioners should have been allowed to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years, (which was the age of superannuation fixed by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh by way of Act 4 of 2014 w.e.f. 27.06.2014)? 81. (f) Whether the petitioners should have been allowed to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years, (which was the age of superannuation fixed by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh by way of Act 4 of 2014 w.e.f. 27.06.2014)? 81. Had there been initiation of process of allocation of employees of the combined High Court at Hyderabad ‘as soon as may be’ after the appointed day of 2.6.2014 and had such final allocation been made in 2014 pending constitution of the separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, these questions would not have arisen at all because the then Chief Justice of the High Court at Hyderabad would have taken a decision either way on the issue of extension of age of retirement to employees who opted and were allocated to the future High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati by taking note of Act 4 of 2014 enacted by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh amending the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 enhancing the age of superannuation for its State Government employees from 58 years to 60 years w.e.f. 27.06.2014. 82. We have already held that theoretically, there was no impediment to frame guidelines for allocation of employees of the High Court of Judicature for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, as soon as may be after 02.06.2014, since anyway creation of a separate High Court of Judicature for the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh was contemplated in Section 30 and 31 of the Act and would have happened as and when the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh decided to have its own High Court exclusively and His Excellency The President Of India issued the notification constituting the said Court. 83. We have also held that though there might be genuine reasons why the guidelines could not be framed for allocation of employees of the High Court immediately after 02.06.2014, it that cannot mean that the said delay should defeat the right conferred on the petitioners to get ‘fair and equal treatment’ like other employees who were in service as on 01.11.2018 and get opportunity to opt for the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as and when it is constituted 84. The Service Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh were published in the Gazette of State of Telangana on 14.06.2017 and Rule 21 of the said Rules made ‘the Fundamental Rules, the Subsidiary Rules thereunder, Civil Service Regulations and other Rules applicable to the employees of Governments of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh to the employees of the High Court insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Rules contained in it’. 85. F.R. No. 56 of Fundamental Rules deals with retirement, but it was omitted by the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 which provided for age of retirement at 58 years for State Government employees. Consequently, the same 58 years of age would be the age of retirement of employees of the High Court also. 86. Under Sub-Section (1) of Section 77 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, every person who immediately before the ‘appointed day’ is serving on substantive basis in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Andhra Pradesh shall, on and from that day, provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government, to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Telangana. 87. It is not the case of either the High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana or the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi that the Central Government had issued any general or special order with regard to employees of the High Court at Hyderabad for both the States during the period 02.06.2014 till 01.01.2019, to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Telangana. 88. Therefore, technically all the employees of the High Court at Hyderabad for both the States as on 2.6.2014 and even thereafter, who were serving on substantive basis in connection with the affairs of the existing common High Court at Hyderabad during the above period, would have to be treated, on and from 02.06.2014 as provisionally continuing to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh only. 89. 89. Therefore the contention of both High Courts that the amendment to the Rules relating to superannuation, having been brought about Act 6 of 2014, by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh alone by amending the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, cannot apply to the petitioners since the State of Telangana has not made a similar amendment cannot be accepted. 90. In other words, though the separate High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh had not been established, still, since the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh had already come into existence, on an interpretation of Section 77(1) of the Act, in the absence of any general or special order of the Central Government to the employees to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Telangana, the existing employees of the High Court at Hyderabad after 02.06.2014, would have to be treated as employees provisionally continuing to serve in connection with the affairs of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. 91. Consequently, whatever age of superannuation applies to State Government Employees of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court employees also would have the same age of superannuation. This is the effect of subs-section (1) of section 77 of the Act. 92. Accordingly we hold on point (e) that the amendment to Age of Superannuation brought about by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh vide Act 4 of 2014 w.e.f. 27.06.2014 can be applied to the employees of the High Court at Hyderabad for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad who were in service on 02.06.2014 and thereafter. 93. Section 3A of the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 2014 issued by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh notified on 27.06.2014 states that: “3-A. Subject to the provisions of Section 3: (1) A Government employee belonging to the State Cadre/Multizonal Cadre and who by general or specific order the Government of India under sub-section (1) of section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 and serving provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Telangana and if he is finally allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Government of India under sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the said act, 2014 shall be deemed to be continuously serving in the State of Andhra Pradesh. (2) A Government employee belonging to the State Cadre/Multizonal Cadre falling in the territories of both the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana, who by a general or a specific order of the Government of India under sub-section (1) of Section 77 of the said Act, 2017, is serving provisionally and retires on attaining the age of fifty eight years and on his final allotment, subsequently to the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Government of India under sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the said Act but before attaining the age of sixty years, shall be re-inducted into service/post with effect from the date of his final allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh without break in service. Provided that an employee who attained the age of sixty years before the final allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Government of India, the services rendered in the State of Telangana till the date of his retirement shall be considered notionally as if, he has rendered service in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of calculation of his pensionary benefits.” 94. Sub-Section (1) of Section 3-A states that a Government employee even if he is serving provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Telangana by virtue of a general or special order of the Government of India under sub-section (1) of Section 77, if he is finally allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Government of India under sub-section (2) of Section 77, shall be deemed to be continuously serving in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 95. There is admittedly no such special or general order issued by the Government of India to any employee of the High Court at Hyderabad after 2.6.2014 asking him to serve in connection with affairs of the State of Telangana. So all employees are deemed to be working in connection with the affairs of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh after 2.6.2014. Also persons like the petitioners were deliberately excluded from the process of allocation under the guidelines framed on 1.11.2018 by the High Court at Hyderabad, though they cannot be so excluded in view of the language contained in sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Act. Also persons like the petitioners were deliberately excluded from the process of allocation under the guidelines framed on 1.11.2018 by the High Court at Hyderabad, though they cannot be so excluded in view of the language contained in sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Act. They were never finally allocated to either the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad or to the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati and the right conferred on them to seek such allocation by sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Act has been defeated by the said guidelines. 96. Sub-Section (2) of Section 3-A states that such employee referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 3-A, even if he retires on attaining the age of 58 years, while serving in the State of Telangana provisionally, on his final allotment subsequently to the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Government of India under sub-section (2) of Section 77 of the Act, but before attaining the age of 60 years, shall be re-inducted into service/post w.e.f. the date of his final allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh without break in service. 97. Since the petitioners had attained the age of 58 years in 2015, they would have attained the age of 60 years (the increased age of superannuation) by 2017. This is much before the constitution of the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati on 1.1.2019. So they cannot be re-inducted into service of the said High Court as on date. 98. So on point (f) we hold that though the petitioners should have been allowed to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years, (which was the age of superannuation fixed by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh by way of Act 4 of 2014 w.e.f. 27.06.2014), on that ground, however they cannot be reinstated now into service in the High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh. 99. 99. However, as explained below they shall be notionally deemed to have rendered service till they attained the age of 60 years in the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati and the said notional service shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of their pensionary benefits by virtue of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3-A of the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as amended by Act 4 of 2014. 100. The Proviso to the Sub-Section (2) of Section 3A, however, gives the benefit of notional service for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits in respect of those employees who attained the age of 60 years before the final allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh, by taking into account the service rendered in the State of Telangana till the dates of their retirement. 101. By virtue of this provision, we hold that the petitioners can be granted better pensionary benefits, subject to what is stated below, because these Writ petitions were all filed before each of the petitioners attained the age of 58 years of service in 2015, in view of the interim orders passed therein that retirement of each of the petitioners shall be subject further orders to be passed in the Writ Petitions. 102. The said benefit shall be confined to only the petitioners in these cases who had not got any extension of service or otherwise continued in service upto 60 years for any reason in the High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh prior to 1.1.2019. 103. The said benefit cannot also be extended to other employees of the High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh who were in service between 2.6.2014 and 1.1.2019 and who have not filed any cases in this Court like the petitioners in these cases. 104. 103. The said benefit cannot also be extended to other employees of the High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh who were in service between 2.6.2014 and 1.1.2019 and who have not filed any cases in this Court like the petitioners in these cases. 104. We accordingly direct that petitioners (other than those mentioned in Para 102 and 103 above) shall be notionally deemed to have rendered service till they attained the age of 60 years in the High Court of Judicature for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati and the said notional service shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of their pensionary benefits by virtue of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3-A of the A.P. Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as amended by Act 4 of 2014. The State of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi shall calculate the said benefits and pay the same to the petitioners within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 105. We direct the High Court of Telangana to forward the service records of the petitioners to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi at the earliest. 106. We direct that the High Court of Telangana and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi shall each pay to each of the petitioners Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards costs within 4 weeks for the manner in which the petitioners were denied their right to exercise options in the Guidelines dated 1.11.2018 published by the common High Court at Hyderabad for both the state of Telangana and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 107. These Writ Petitions are allowed to the above limited extent with the above directions. 108. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.