Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1651 (AP)

K. Swarna Kumari v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-12-29

G.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

body2023
JUDGMENT G.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J. - Heard Smt. P. Vijaya Kumari, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Learned Standing Counsel for SERP (Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty). 2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: "It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the age of superannuation of the petitioner from 60 years to 62 years in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022 while extending the age to the similarly situated persons as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service until she attains the age of superannuation of 62 years on par with the government employees in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022 with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." FACTS IN BRIEF: 3. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that she is presently working as Senior Assistant in the Office of the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Vizianagaram (Respondent No.3); that initially the Writ Petitioner was selected by the District Selection Committee as Additional Grama Sevika and that she was subsequently promoted as Extension Officer/Junior Assistant vide G.O.Ms.No.384, dtd. 10/1/2004; that thereafter, she was promoted as Senior Assistant under Rule 10(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules; that thereafter, the Writ Petitioner served as Area Coordinator (equivalent to Senior Assistant Cadre) and the pay of the Petitioner was fixed under Fundamental Rule 22(a)(1); that her Pay Scale was revised vide Proceedings bearing Rc.No.31/2022/C, dtd. 18/2/2022 in the light of the recommendations of the PRC-2022. 4. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.135, dtd. 8/3/1991 called the Model Service Regulations. Para No.12 of the said Regulation reads as under: "12. AGE OF SUPERANNUATION:- The employees of Agency shall retire on attaining the age of Superannuation. The age of Superannuation and the date of retirement from the service of the Agency shall be as per the provisions applicable to the Government employees of similar categories from time to time." 5. Para No.12 of the said Regulation reads as under: "12. AGE OF SUPERANNUATION:- The employees of Agency shall retire on attaining the age of Superannuation. The age of Superannuation and the date of retirement from the service of the Agency shall be as per the provisions applicable to the Government employees of similar categories from time to time." 5. A copy of the Model Service Regulation has also been placed on record along with the Counter Affidavit. Para No.21 of the Model Service Regulation reads as under: "21. APPLICABILITY OF OTHER RULES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT: Except to the extent specifically provided in these rules, the rules and the instructions of Government issued from to time to the Government Servants contained in the following rules shall apply to the employees of the Agency shown against each in respect of their conditions of service: 6. It is further submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has brought out G.O.Ms.No.147, dtd. 30/6/2014 pertaining to the extension of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years and that the same was implemented in favour of the Employees of DRDA in the year 2018. 7. It is the submission of Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has brought out G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022 through which the age of superannuation of the Government Employees was extended from 60 years to 62 years. The Writ Petitioner, who is likely to complete the age of 60 years by 31/12/2023, is now seeking application of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022 in her favour and, consequently extend the age of her superannuation from 60 to 62 years. It is also submitted that some other Employees approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.19030 of 2023, 8621 of 2023 and 8535 of 2023 and had obtained Interim Orders to continue in service until they reach the age of 62 years on par with other Government Employees. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioners in W.P.Nos.19030 of 2023, 8621 of 2023 and 8535 of 2023 are now being continued in service until they attain the age of 62 years by virtue of the Interim Orders which have been placed on the file of this case (Ex.P.11). It is further submitted that the Petitioner herein was served with the Retirement Notice dtd. 4/10/2023 indicating that she shall retire on attaining age of 60 years on 31/12/2023. It is further submitted that the Petitioner herein was served with the Retirement Notice dtd. 4/10/2023 indicating that she shall retire on attaining age of 60 years on 31/12/2023. SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2: 8. The Respondent No.2 namely the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty has filed Counter Affidavit dtd. 10/12/2023. It is stated in the Counter Affidavit that DRDA (Respondent No.3) is an Agency in each District run by the Government of India for implementation of the IRDP (Integrated Rural Development Programme) and DPAP (Drought Prone Area Programme) and also other programmes which relate to poverty eradication. It is stated at Para No.12 of the Counter Affidavit that Respondent No.2 is the Controlling Authority of all the DRDAs in the respective Districts and that DRDAs have been placed under the supervision of Respondent No.2 i.e., the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty vide Memo. No.17296/RD.I/A2/2009, dtd. 5/9/2009, Department of Rural Development. It is further stated in the Counter Affidavit that the Model Service Regulations governing the service conditions of the Employees of District Rural Development Agencies is not applicable to the case of the Writ Petitioner. It is further submitted by Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, in a batch of Writ Appeals bearing W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and Batch, dtd. 5/5/2023. He further submits that the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court had held that G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, as regards the enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years, cannot be made applicable to Employees of the Society since the Writ Petitioner is employed by Respondent No.2, which is a Society, and therefore the ratio laid down by the Division Bench is squarely applicable in this case also. RE-JOINDER BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONER: 9. RE-JOINDER BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONER: 9. Smt. P. Vijaya Kumari, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, refuting the submissions of Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2, has submitted that the Writ Petitioner is an Employee under the service of the Government of Andhra Pradesh; that she has been appointed in the year 1986 and that even as per the averment in the Counter Affidavit that her services have been regularized in the service of the Respondent No.3 namely the DRDA vide G.O.Ms.No.70, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.II) Department, dtd. 16/3/2005 (Ex.P.3) and in pursuance of the said G.O, the Project Director of DRDA (Respondent No.3) issued Orders thereby regularizing the services of the Petitioner vide Proceedings bearing Rc.No.345/2003/J, dtd. 13/10/2005 (Ex.P.4). Learned Counsel has taken this Court through the Regularization Proceedings (G.O.Ms.No.70, dtd. 16/3/2005 and Proceedings bearing Rc.No.345/2003/J, dtd. 13/10/2005 - Ex.P.3 and P.4 respectively) to submit that the Respondent No.2 is only a Nodel Agency which has been brought into existence by virtue of Memo No.17296/RD.I/A2/2009, dtd. 5/9/2009. She would submit that the Respondent No.2 Society is a subsequent creation which came into existence only from 5/9/2009 and it has been constituted only to supervise and coordinate the working of various DRDAs. She further submits that the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Model Service Regulations issued in the year 1991 would not apply to the case of the Petitioner is completely misleading. She has taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Model Service Regulations which were brought into existence vide G.O.Ms.No.135, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (RD.II) Department, dtd. 8/3/1991. DISCUSSION: 10. The fact that the Writ Petitioner was appointed initially in the year 1986 and that her services have been regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.70, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (RD.II) Department, dtd. 16/3/2005 (Ex.P.3) and by Proceedings bearing Rc.No.345/2003/J, dtd. 13/10/2005 (Ex.P.4) are not in dispute. It is also seen that both the Proceedings are issued by Respondent No.3. Admittedly (as per Paragraph No.12 of the Counter Affidavit), the Respondent No.2 had not come into existence even by the date of regularization of services of the Writ Petitioner. On perusal of the Model Service Regulations, this Court has noticed that Regulation No.1 indicates that the title of this Model Service Regulations is called "The Employees Service Regulations" (the Regulations). Admittedly (as per Paragraph No.12 of the Counter Affidavit), the Respondent No.2 had not come into existence even by the date of regularization of services of the Writ Petitioner. On perusal of the Model Service Regulations, this Court has noticed that Regulation No.1 indicates that the title of this Model Service Regulations is called "The Employees Service Regulations" (the Regulations). Para No.12 of the Regulations deals with the age of superannuation which categorically states that the age of superannuation of the Employees of the Agency shall be as per the provisions applicable to the Government Employees of similar categories from time to time. Para No.21 of the said Regulations would indicate that the said Rules (Model Service Regulations/Employees Service Regulations) and the instructions of Government issued from time to time to the Government Servants contained in the following rules shall apply to the Employees of the Agency shown against each in respect of their conditions of service (extracted supra). Insofar as the Writ Petitioner is concerned, the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules would apply. 11. In the above premise, it appears to the Court that the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Writ Petitioner is in the service of Respondent No.2 is factually incorrect. On perusal of the Proceedings issued by the Respondent No.1 namely the Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (R.D.II) Department vide G.O.Ms.No.70, dtd. 16/3/2005 (Ex.P.3) and the Annexure attached to the said G.O, it categorically confirms that the Writ Petitioner was appointed in the services of Respondent No.3 on 1/2/1986. Her name is found at Sl.No.7 of the Annexure to evidence the fact that she has been appointed on 1/2/1986 and was regularized by the Proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.70, dtd. 16/3/2005 (Ex.P.3). The subsequent Proceedings issued by the Respondent No.3 dtd. 13/10/2005 bearing Rc.No.345/2003/J (Ex.P.4) would also indicate that the services of the Writ Petitioner were regularized by the Respondent No.3. It also transpires from the Record that the Respondent No.2 is a Society which is subsequently created for having administrative control over all the DRDAs in the districts of Andhra Pradesh. The Judgment relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch dtd. 5/5/2023 has been perused by this Court. It also transpires from the Record that the Respondent No.2 is a Society which is subsequently created for having administrative control over all the DRDAs in the districts of Andhra Pradesh. The Judgment relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch dtd. 5/5/2023 has been perused by this Court. The said Judgment has dealt with the Employees of Corporations; whereas, the present Writ Petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 and was eventually regularized by the Proceedings issued by the Respondent No.1 vide G.O.Ms.No.70, dtd. 16/3/2005 (Ex.P.3). This makes it amply clear that the services of the Writ Petitioner were regularized by the Respondent No.1 and she had served in the District Rural Development Agency. The District Rural Development Agency, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be termed as a Corporation. Therefore, this Court would have no hesitation to hold that the ratio in the judgment of W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch dtd. 05/05/2023 has no application to the facts of this case. 12. Having considered the facts and circumstances hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.15 Finance (HR. IV-FR&LR) Department, dtd. 31/1/2022 enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years to Government Employees would apply in favour of the Writ Petitioner as well with full force. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner shall be continued in service of the Respondent No.3 with all service benefits until she attains the age of 62 years. 13. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. 14. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.