ORDER : 1. Impugning the orders of 1st respondent vide Ref.No.RC.AD/LWO/2021 dated 30.11.2021 whereby retiring the petitioner from service at the age of 58 years, the above writ petition is filed. 2. (a) The averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Labour Welfare Officer in 1st respondent industry on 09.11.2006 after due selection process. Petitioner served in the industry as regular employee and the contractual period was due to expire on 21.12.2023 on attaining the age of 60 years. According to the Standing Orders, there are two cadres of employees in the establishment, 1) Manager and 2) Worker. Office of the Labour Welfare Officer is not clothed with any financial or managerial powers. All the employees, other than Manager, are treated as workers. The age of superannuation according to the Standing Orders is 60 years. However, 1st respondent vide proceedings, impugned in the writ petition, extended contract service upto 21.12.2021 only, since the petitioner is attaining the age of 58 years. (b) The Government of Andhra Pradesh, after reorganization of the State, extended the age of superannuation to all the employees in the State upto 60 years vide G.O.Ms.No.147 Finance (HRM IV) Department, dated 30.06.2014. The institutions specified in Schedule IX and X under the Act in the State of Andhra Pradesh were directed not to retire its employees on the ground that they crossed the age of 58 years. Pursuant to the proposals of the Director of Sugar and Labour Commissioner to enhance the age of retirement in respect of staff and workmen of the Cooperative Sugar Factories, the Government issued Memo No.89766/Est/A1/2017 dated 23.07.2018 giving instructions to the Managing Committees of the respective Board of Directors/PICs to enhance the age duly taking into consideration the financial position. 1st Respondent, accordingly, is continuing all the staff and workmen upto the age of 60 years. The respondents are selectively implementing the Government orders. With these averments, the above writ petition is filed. 3. (a) Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 3rd Respondent. The Director of Sugar & Cane Commissioner deposed to the affidavit. It was contended, interalia, that the petitioner was appointed as Labour Welfare Officer purely on contract basis and on consolidated pay by the 1st respondent. With these averments, the above writ petition is filed. 3. (a) Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 3rd Respondent. The Director of Sugar & Cane Commissioner deposed to the affidavit. It was contended, interalia, that the petitioner was appointed as Labour Welfare Officer purely on contract basis and on consolidated pay by the 1st respondent. The selection of petitioner was not made through selection committee constituted under Common Cadre Regulations prescribed as per Section 116-A of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”). The Rules and Regulations framed for the Common Cadre Officers of Cooperative Sugar Factories are not applicable to the petitioner. As per Regulation No.30 of Common Cadre Regulations, the age of superannuation of regular Common Cadre Officers is 58 years only and the same was not enhanced due to bad financial position of Cooperative Sugar Factories. The contractual services of petitioner were continued from time to time on humanitarian grounds, basing on the requirement of 1st respondent. Since the petitioner is working as Labour Welfare Officer purely on contract basis and consolidated pay, he is not entitled to continue in service beyond 58 years. (b) 1st Respondent is a Cooperative Society registered under the Act and it is not a government undertaking. As per Section 9 of the Act, the 1st respondent is a body corporate and is entitled to do all the things necessary for the purpose for which it was constituted. The provisions of G.O.Ms.No.147 Finance (HRM IV) Department dated 30.06.2014 are not applicable to 1st respondent, since the Cooperative Sugar Factories do not come under Schedule IX and X of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. The Government Memo No.8976/Estt./A1/2017 dated 23.07.2018 is not applicable to the petitioner, since he is not a regular employee of 1st respondent or a regular Common Cadre Officer and eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri K.Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services–I for 3rd respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being employee of 1st respondent, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014, the 1st respondent could have been extended service by two more years. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being employee of 1st respondent, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014, the 1st respondent could have been extended service by two more years. He would submit that age of superannuation to all the Government employees has been extended from 58 years to 60 years by amending the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014. He would also submit that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Memo No.8976/Estt./A1/2017 dated 23.07.2018, permitting the Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner to issue instructions to the Managing Committees of Cooperative Sugar Factories in the State to place proposals to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years to their staff/workers before the respective Board of Directors/PICs for taking suitable decision at the factory level considering their financial position and genuineness of their need to enhance the age of superannuation. He would further submit that the petitioner has been discharging duties as Labour Welfare Officer and hence, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the age of superannuation of as 60 years. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner is not a regular employee and he was appointed on contract basis. He would also submit that selection of petitioner was not made through selection committee and the post of Labour Welfare Officer comes under Common Cadre Officers and the age of superannuation is 58 years only. Age of superannuation was not enhanced to 60 years in the Unit and hence, the petitioner, being contract employee, is not entitled to continue upto 60 years. He would also submit that G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014 is not applicable to the Cooperative Sugar Factories, since the unit does not come under Schedule IX and X of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. He would submit that Memo No.8976/Estt./A1/2017 dated 23.07.2018 does not apply to the petitioner, since he is not a regular employee of 1st respondent or regular Common Cadre Officer. 7. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the proceedings impugned in the writ petition superannuating the petitioner by 31.12.2021 on attaining the age of 58 years, without extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014, is illegal and arbitrary? 8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has been working in the 1st respondent as Labour Welfare Officer. 7. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the proceedings impugned in the writ petition superannuating the petitioner by 31.12.2021 on attaining the age of 58 years, without extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014, is illegal and arbitrary? 8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has been working in the 1st respondent as Labour Welfare Officer. As can be seen from the proceedings impugned in the writ petition, the petitioner has been working since 2006. Though the petitioner was appointed as contract employee, the period of contract is being extended from time to time. The consolidated pay is also enhanced from Rs.33,600/- to Rs.40,000/- per month with effect from the date of extension of his contract by the Managing Director vide Ref.No.RCAD/LWO/80/2021 dated 15.07.2021. A perusal of appointment of petitioner vide Ref.No.RC.AD/6/2006 dated 09.11.2006 would discern that, petitioner was appointed, as per the proceedings of Selection Committee and the Note Approval of the District Collector in November 2006, on contract basis for one year and the same is being extended from time to time. The averment in the counter affidavit that selection of petitioner was not made through Selection Committee, in view of above referred proceedings, is not true and correct i.e. proceedings of the Managing Director of 1st respondent dated 09.11.2006. 9. Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.147 dated 30.06.2014 enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years by making amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014. The Secretary to the Government by Memo No.8976/Estt./A1/2017 dated 23.07.2018 permitted the Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner to issue instructions to the Managing Committees of Cooperative Sugar Factories in the State to place proposals to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. 10. The Division Bench of composite High Court in G.Rama Mohan Rao and another Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2017 (3) ALT 1 , observed thus: “28. It is not in dispute that the service conditions of officers and employees of wholly owned State Government Public Sector undertakings, (Corporations, Companies or Societies), are not governed by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such employees do not, therefore, fall within the ambit of clause (iv) of Section 1(2) of the 1984 Act. Such employees do not, therefore, fall within the ambit of clause (iv) of Section 1(2) of the 1984 Act. As they do not, admittedly, fall under clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 1(2), it is only if they fall under clause (i) of Section 1(2) of the 1984 Act, and are held to be persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, can they be held to be Government employees as defined in Section 2(3) of the 1984 Act, and it is only then would they be entitled to claim the benefit of the age of superannuation of 60 years under Section 3 of the 2014 State Act. 41. Employees governed by the terms of a contract do not possess the status of government servants. Neither are they governed by the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, nor do they enjoy the protection under Article 311. (UPSC Vs. Dr. Jamuna Kurup: (2008) 11 SCC 10 ; Roshan Lal Tandon : AIR 1967 SC 1889 (supra); Dinesh Chandra Sangma Vs. State of Assam : (1977) 4 SCC 441 ). Employees of statutory bodies are governed by statutory rules, and do not enjoy the status of government servants. (Dr. Jamuna Kurup : (2008) 11 SCC 10 (supra)). Employees of government companies are not civil servants. Such employees have no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay scale should be met by the Government. Being employees of the Companies, it is the responsibility of the Companies concerned to pay them salary and, if the company is sustaining losses continuously over a period and does not have the financial capacity to revise or enhance pay scales, its employees cannot claim any legal right against, or seek a direction to, the State Government to meet the additional expenditure required to be incurred on account of revision of pay scales. (A.K. Bindal Vs. Union of India: (2003) 5 SCC 163 ; Pyare Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Director : (1989) 3 SCC 448 ). 193. (A.K. Bindal Vs. Union of India: (2003) 5 SCC 163 ; Pyare Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Director : (1989) 3 SCC 448 ). 193. Since the Board of Directors/Managing Committees of these wholly or substantially government owned Companies/Corporations/Societies have submitted proposals, the State Government is obligated to consider the request of each of these corporations/companies/societies separately, based on their financial position, genuineness of their need to enhance the age of superannuation etc, and then take a decision whether or not their request, to enhance the age of superannuation of their employees from 58 to 60 years, should be approved. Suffice it, if the Government of A.P. is directed to consider the proposals submitted by each of these corporations/societies/companies, for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years in accordance with law, and take a decision thereupon at the earliest, in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 11. The Division Bench extensively considered all the aspects and held that enhancement of age from 58 to 60 is applicable to only to government servants whose salaries are paid out of the consolidated fund. The observation of the Division Bench in Para 193 is only to consider. Unless, the petitioner satisfies this Court that 1st respondent adopted memo, extension of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 does not arise. 12. Labour Welfare Officer is common cadre post. Age of superannuation is 58 years. Petitioner’s service was not extended beyond 58 years. Nothing is placed on record as to whether the Memo No.8976/Estt./A1/2017 dated 23.07.2018 was adopted by 1st respondent or not. Unless, the memo is adopted 1st respondent, petitioner cannot contend, as a matter of right that he is entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years. 13. In view of the discussion supra, this Court does not find any illegality in the proceedings vide Ref.No.RC.AD/LWO/2021 dated 30.11.2021. There are no merits in the writ petition and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 15. 13. In view of the discussion supra, this Court does not find any illegality in the proceedings vide Ref.No.RC.AD/LWO/2021 dated 30.11.2021. There are no merits in the writ petition and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 15. After pronouncement of order, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner himself tendered resignation to the Post of Labour Welfare Officer (Contract Basis) on 27.05.2023 and the same was accepted by the 1st respondent vide proceedings in Ref.No.RC.AD/6/LWO/2022-23 dated 27.05.2023 and he filed the copies of the said proceedings into the Court. The said material is made part of the record. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.