JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J 1. This Batch of Writ Appeals is filed against the final order dated 21.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.9311 of 2022 and batch by a learned single Judge of this Court. In all, there are 16 appeals which are taken up for hearing. 2. The issue in these writ petitions arises out of the amendment of the A.P. Public Employment Act, 1984 (for short “the Act 23 of 1984”) by which the age of retirement was increased to 60 to 62 years. Writ petitions are filed by the appellants who are Co-operative Sugar Factory employees. 3. The contention of Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and G.P. for Service-I is that learned single Judge grossly erred in allowing the writ petitions. It is his contention that the Cooperative Sugar Factory is registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and none of the employees are working under the Government. They are not employees of the Government at all. It is also pointed out that in the counter it was brought to the notice of the learned single Judge that most of the sugar factories are running on heavy losses and are unable to pay even the full wages to their employees during the period of functioning of the sugar factory i.e. six months. Yet the impugned order was passed He points out that this amendment to the Act is not at all applicable to the facts. It was also pointed out that the said Act will only apply to persons who are working in the service of the State and whose salaries are paid out of the consolidated fund etc. Learned counsel also points out that the single judge ignored the law on the subject and granted the order. He also points out that the concept of a public servant for the purpose of corrupt practices and prosecution under the IPC cannot be used to justify the conclusions. Lastly, he submits that the judgment in G. Rama Mohan Rao v. Govt. of A.P., 2017 (3) ALT 1 is a complete answer to the issue. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-workmen on the other hand justifies the order passed and states that no error is committed by the learned single Judge. Lastly, he submits that the judgment in G. Rama Mohan Rao v. Govt. of A.P., 2017 (3) ALT 1 is a complete answer to the issue. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-workmen on the other hand justifies the order passed and states that no error is committed by the learned single Judge. It is pointed out that on earlier occasion, the retirement age was extended from 58 to 60 years and that basing upon the instructions of the Government only, as noted in the circular of the Commissioner, the writ petition was allowed. It is submitted that the circular instructions directed the Managing Directors to follow the instructions of the Government on the age of superannuation. Hence, no error is pointed out. COURT:- 5. This Court after considering the submissions made notices that even earlier, the relevant G.Os., issued stipulated the manner in which the age of superannuation is to be increased for employees. In G.O.Ms.No.102, the following directions were given: “4(1) The specific decision to enhance the superannuation are from 58 to 60 years to their employees shall be taken by the Board of Directors/Managing Committees of these legal entities. (2) While doing so, these institutions shall take into consideration their financial position and genuineness of their need to enhance the age of superannuation. (3) In case of Residential Education societies, the decision should be based on the genuineness of their need and assessment of performance of these societies. 5. These orders shall come into force prospectively from the date of issue of the orders by competent authorities after amending the relevant regulations/bye-laws. These directions are not followed. The financial health of the societies must be taken into view before the increase in age is to be considered since this additional financial burden will have to be borne by the Society. 6. These directions are not followed. The financial health of the societies must be taken into view before the increase in age is to be considered since this additional financial burden will have to be borne by the Society. 6. As far as the Act 23 of 1984 is concerned, the said Act applies to the following: (2) It shall apply to— (i) persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State; (ii) officers and other employees working in any local authority, whose salaries and allowances are paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State; (iii) persons appointed to the Secretariat staff of the Houses of the State Legislature; and (iv) every other officer or employee whose conditions of service are regulated by rules framed under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India immediately before the commencement of this Act, other than the village officers and law officers; whether appointed before or after the commencement of this Act. 7. No material is filed to prove that the employees /writ petitioners fit into this definition or that the directions of the Government were followed. The Government also time and again had issued instructions that if the instrumentality of a State or a Government undertaking etc., wants to adopt the increased age of superannuation, it should carry out a necessary amendment of its rules and regulations and also secure the approval of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Even in the concluding part of the judgment of G.Rama Mohan Rao (1 supra), the Division Bench held that the employees cannot claim any right to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. It is clearly mentioned that if the request of the companies, corporations, societies etc, for amendment of the bye-laws and rules are approved and the said bye-laws and rules are amended thereafter in accordance with law, the employees would be entitled to the increase in age. In addition, it is also clearly mentioned that a Mandamus cannot be issued to enhance the age from 58 to 60 years. The decision, whether or not the age of superannuation should be increased to 60 years would depend upon a number of factors like the need for enhancing the age, the financial capacity and condition of the organisation etc. In addition, it is also clearly mentioned that a Mandamus cannot be issued to enhance the age from 58 to 60 years. The decision, whether or not the age of superannuation should be increased to 60 years would depend upon a number of factors like the need for enhancing the age, the financial capacity and condition of the organisation etc. This judgment of the Division Bench was followed by a subsequent Division Bench in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch. This is the position of law as it is stands. The learned single Judge’s attention was also drawn to G.O.Ms.No.102 and the financial capacity of the society, which is also mentioned in the order itself but the same was not considered. Unless and until the permission of the Government was obtained and the financial capacity and other criteria are satisfied, the Board of Directors themselves cannot recommend the enhancement of age. 8. In para 13 itself, it was noted that the employees of the sugar factory are “equated” to State Government employees. It is also noted that the issue should be placed before the Board of the sugar factory. Yet, in the conclusion, it appears that these issues were overlooked. This Court also has to agree with the contention that the definition of a public servant which is referred to in the judgment of the Madras high Court would not apply to a Government servant who is governed by the Act 23 of 1984. 9. The mere fact that on an earlier occasion, the age of retirement was increased from 58 to 60 cannot be a ground to extend the age from 60 to 62 years. A similar argument advanced in the case of G. Rama Mohan Rao (1 supra) was also negatived. In that case, similar arguments were advanced including the argument that the State of Telangana has extended the benefit to the employees of Public Sector Undertakings also. This argument was negatived and it was also held that even the employees of Public Sector Undertakings which are fully owned by the Government will not be “Government Employees” and would be a distinct class. Therefore, it was held that the benefits extended to State Government employees will not extend to such public sector undertakings. This argument was negatived and it was also held that even the employees of Public Sector Undertakings which are fully owned by the Government will not be “Government Employees” and would be a distinct class. Therefore, it was held that the benefits extended to State Government employees will not extend to such public sector undertakings. The interim direction given in W.P.No.20653 of 2015 cannot also be treated as a binding precedent, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of our High Court. 10. In view of all of the above, this Court finds that the appeals have to succeed and accordingly, the writ appeals are allowed, setting aside the order impugned. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.