Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1214 (AP)

Pidakala Benarji v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-08-28

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2024
ORDER : 1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners to declare the action of the respondents in not allowing them to discharge duties as S.G.Ts (M.T.S.) etc. despite the service till the end of academic year i.e. 30.06.2024 as per Government Memo No. 1712743/Service-1/ A2/2024 dated 30.05.2024 under the guise of condition No. 5(A) of G.O.Ms. No. 27 dated 31.01.2022 without extending the benefit of superannuation up to 62 years, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.S. Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for Respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners were appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on contract basis on 12.04.2023 and 13.04.2023 in pursuance of the DSC conducted in 1998. He would submit that petitioners are entitled to continue in service at the age of superannuation of 62 years in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated 31.01.2022, however, the respondents are not allowing the petitioners to continue in service till 62 years by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 27 dated 15.03.2023. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis for 11 months on 12.04.2023 and 13.04.2023. He would submit that the appointment letters were issued in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 27 dated 15.03.2023. He also would submit that the benefit under G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated 31.01.2022, will not apply to the petitioners. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance upon order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 30195 of 2023 dated 22.11.2023. 6. The point for consideration is: Whether the petitioners appointed on 12.04.2023 and 13.04.2023 on contract basis, are entitled to benefit under G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated 31.01.2022 extending the age of superannuation up to 62 years? 7. It is an admitted fact that petitioners were appointed on contract basis for 11 months on 12.04.2023 and 13.04.2023. The appointments were made in pursuance of the willingness given by the candidates under Rule 9(A) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Rules, 1996 on a consolidated salary of Rs.32,670/- per month. The appointment letter further discloses that the appointment of the petitioners is purely on contract basis on the terms and conditions applicable to contract employees as per the existing rules, without any security, up to 60 years of age. 8. Government issued G.O.Ms. The appointment letter further discloses that the appointment of the petitioners is purely on contract basis on the terms and conditions applicable to contract employees as per the existing rules, without any security, up to 60 years of age. 8. Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 27 dated 15.03.2023 Clause 5(a) and 5(e) reads as follows: “(a) Their appointment is purely on contract basis on terms and conditions applicable to contract employees as per existing rules, without any scrutiny up to 60 years of age of the candidates. (e) These orders are issued for accommodation of the DSC-1998 candidates only by giving as a special case in the exceptional circumstances on humanitarian grounds, and this shall not be taken as precedent.” 9. Learned single Judge in W.P. No. 30195 of 2023 which was filed seeking extension of benefit of superannuation up to 62 years, considered the appointment of the petitioners therein who were appointed on 13.04.2023 in service as MPPS, Pallepalem, vide order dated 22.11.2023 dismissed the Writ Petition observing that the extension of age of superannuation has been devised for such persons who have been engaged in the services of the Government and other agencies and institutions for a longer period of time and since the appointment of the petitioners therein is in April, 2023, benefit under G.O.Ms. No. 15 cannot be extended. 10. The case on hand, as discussed supra, the petitioners were appointed on 12.04.2023 and 13.04.2023 for 11 months. In appointment letter, it was specifically stated the appointment was purely on contract basis and the terms and conditions will attract to them without any security up to 60 years of age. The appointment letter was issued in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 27 dated 15.03.2023. The terms and conditions of the appointment are clear. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit under G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated 31.01.2022. In fact, against the order in W.P. No. 30195 of 2023 and batch, W.A. No. 698 and 705 of 2024 were filed and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench on 28.01.2024. 12. Given the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions and hence, they are liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.