ORDER: NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by employees working in various designations of the A.P.State Housing Corporation seeking for enhancement of age of superannuation of 62 years in terms of G.O.Ms. No.15, Finance Department, dated 31.01.2022. 2. Pursuant to the amendment of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 vide G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022 issued by the State Government enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years, a Board Resolution was passed on 22.03.2022 by the Respondent-Corporation, whereunder it was resolved to enhance the age of employees of the Corporation from 60 to 62 years on par with Government employees. In spite of the Resolution, concurrence of the State Government was sought. As some of the employees were retired, writ petitions were filed before this Court seeking for continuation of their services till the age of 62 years. While the writ petitions were pending, the State Government issued a letter Lr.No.1699176/VC.A2/2022-2, dated 18.07.2024 rejecting the proposal for enhancement of age of superannuation of employees of Respondent-Corporation. In that view, writ petitions were dismissed leaving it open to challenge the rejection proceedings. 3. In some of the writ petitions, the rejection of the Government’s decision referred above was challenged apart from continuation of services on the ground that a committee was constituted under G.O.Rt.No.1545, GAD (Cabinet.I) Department dated 22.08.2025 for examining the feasibility of enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years to the employees working in Government Institutions/Societies/Corporations included in Schedules IX and X of the A.P Reorganization Act, 2014. It is contended that the impugned order of rejection by the State Government on 18.07.2024 was without considering the requirement of experienced staff and financial viability of the Corporation and the Government had independently and mechanically rejected the proposal. It is stated that retirement of experienced employees in the Corporation is causing difficulty to execute the work and till a decision is taken, the Petitioners should be permitted to continue in service. It is also stated that orders of retirement were issued by authority other than the Managing Director, who is not contemplated in the rules and therefore, the same is bad. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent- Corporation, it is stated that by circular dated 11.07.2022 under Section 175 of the Companies Act, 2015 earlier resolution passed on 22.03.2022 was withdrawn. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent- Corporation, it is stated that by circular dated 11.07.2022 under Section 175 of the Companies Act, 2015 earlier resolution passed on 22.03.2022 was withdrawn. Another resolution was passed by the Board of Respondent-Corporation in the meeting held on 30.09.2022 fixing the age of superannuation as 60 years to the employees of A.P State Housing Corporation Limited taking its financial status. It is also mentioned that subsequent to the decision taken by the Board taking the financial status of the Corporation and the crisis it is facing due to paucity of funds, the State Government had rightly rejected the enhancement of age from 60 to 62 years. It is also stated that it is a policy decision taken by the Government taking into consideration several factors. Reliance was also placed on the Judgments of this Court in W.A.No.392 of 2023 and batch, W.A.No.204 of 2024 and W.P.No.21294 of 2023. 5. Heard Sri Abhay Siddanth, Sri Veladi Sai Sri Harsha, Smt. Naga Chandrika, Sri Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners and G.P. for Services II for the Respondents. 6. Reasoning: The A.P.State Housing Corporation is a State owned Corporation and in exercise of powers conferred under Section 141 of Articles of Association of the A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.33 Housing (RH), dated 26.05.1998 approving the Staffing Pattern and General Service Rules of employees of Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited. 7. These Rules were framed and named as A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited General Service Rules . As per Rule 4, a change in the Rules by way of amendment should be made with the prior approval of the Board as well as Government of Andhra Pradesh. 8. Originally, as per Rule 21, the age of superannuation and retirement of employees was 58 years and the Rule as framed is as under: (i) Every employee except Class IV shall retire from service of the Corporation on attainment of the age of fifty eight years and the Class IV employees however shall retire on attaining the age of sixty years. 9. Subsequently, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.102 Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department, dated 27.06.2017 enhancing the age of superannuation of employees listed in Schedules IX and X of the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014. Pursuant thereto, the age of superannuation of the individuals in the Respondent-Corporation was enhanced to 60 years. 10. 9. Subsequently, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.102 Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department, dated 27.06.2017 enhancing the age of superannuation of employees listed in Schedules IX and X of the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014. Pursuant thereto, the age of superannuation of the individuals in the Respondent-Corporation was enhanced to 60 years. 10. Thereafter, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 amending the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 and enhancing the age of Government employees from 60 to 62 years. In pursuance of the amendment, the Board of Respondent- Corporation on 22.03.2022 passed a resolution enhancing the age of superannuation of employees from 60 to 62 years and said proposals were forwarded to the State Government. 11. After the Board Resolution, a batch of writ petitions was filed before this Court i.e., W.P.Nos.11700 of 2024 and batch by the employees of the Respondent-Corporation for continuance of their service till the age of superannuation of 62 years. This Court had initially granted an interim order in the respective writ petitions. Subsequently, the State Government vide letter dated 18.07.2024 rejected the same. In that view, the batch of writ petitions was dismissed by this Court with liberty to challenge the Government’s decision. 12. The cause of action to file the present batch of writ petitions is that a Committee was constituted by the State Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1545, General Administration (Cabinet.I) Department dated 22.08.2025 for a detailed examination of feasibility and recommendations on the issue of enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years for the employees working in Government Institutions/Societies/Corporations included in IX th and X th Schedules of the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014 and also the Government’s decision rejecting enhancement of age of superannuation. Hence, the present writ petitions were filed for the continuation of the services of the Petitioners. 13. It is pertinent to note that, as mentioned above, the age of superannuation as per the service regulations read with G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 27.06.2017 is 60 years for the employees of the Corporation. As on date, there is no amendment to the Service Rules as there is no concurrence of the State Government for enhanced age of superannuation. It is to be noted that the age of superannuation is a condition of service and as per the Rules, any amendment requires concurrence of the State Government. As on date, there is no amendment to the Service Rules as there is no concurrence of the State Government for enhanced age of superannuation. It is to be noted that the age of superannuation is a condition of service and as per the Rules, any amendment requires concurrence of the State Government. Rule 4 of the A.P.State Housing Corporation Limited General Service Rules, reads as under: 4. Change in Rules: Any change or alteration or modification by way of an amendment to these rules shall be made with prior approval of the Board and Government. 14. The term ‘Government’ was also defined in Rule 3(n) as meaning State Government. Rule 3(n) defining Government reads as under: 3(n) “Government” means Government of Andhra Pradesh. 15. The constitution of a Committee under G.O.Rt.No.1545, dated 22.08.2025 to examine the feasibility of enhancement of age of superannuation, per se, cannot be a ground for seeking enhancement of superannuation at the age of 62 years pending consideration by the committee constituted. It is to be noted that the age of superannuation is a policy decision which has ramifications of recruitment as well as financial implications on the Respondent-Corporation and unless a concrete decision is taken by the State Government as contemplated under the Rules referred above, this Court, in anticipation of a decision of the Committee, cannot grant any relief to the Petitioners. 16. It is to be noted that continuance of employees beyond the age of superannuation would be contrary to the service conditions existing as on date and would amount to alteration of service conditions, which is impermissible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.M. Gadre v. M.G. Diwan and Others , [ (1996) 3 SCC 454 ] held that even while exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India , it would not be permissible for the Court to substitute all the existing service conditions. The relevant portion at paragraph 10 is extracted below: “ ....While exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 142 it would not be permissible for the Court to substitute all the existing service conditions by a totally new set of service conditions.” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. The relevant portion at paragraph 10 is extracted below: “ ....While exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 read with Article 142 it would not be permissible for the Court to substitute all the existing service conditions by a totally new set of service conditions.” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Prakasan M.P., and Others v. State of Kerala , 2023 Supreme (SC) 801 while dealing with the claim of enhanced age of superannuation, held that these are policy issues and it is not for Courts to prescribe a different age of superannuation. The relevant Paragraph thereof is extracted below; “11. It is well-settled that the age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of the State Government. It is not for the courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from the one applicable to Government employees under the relevant service Rules and Regulations. Nor can the Court insist that once the State had taken a decision to issue a similar Government Order that would extend the age of retirement of the staff teaching in the Homeopathic Colleges as was issued in respect of different categories of teaching staff belonging to the Dental stream and the Ayurvedic stream, the said G.O. ought to have been made retrospective, as was done when G.O. dated 14th January, 2010 was issued by the State and given retrospective effect from 1st May, 2009. These are all matters of policy that engage the State Government. It may even elect to give the benefit of extension of age to a particular class of Government employees while denying the said benefit to others for valid considerations that may include financial implications, administrative considerations, exigencies of service, etc.” 18. Similarly, in New Okhal Industrial Development Authority and Another v. B.D. Singhal and Others , 2021 SCC OnLine SC 466 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the age of superannuation is a policy matter and not for the Courts to venture into. The Paragraphs 22 and 26 thereof are extracted below; “22. Whether the age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance the age of superannuation, the date with effect from which the enhancement should be made falls within the realm of policy. The Paragraphs 22 and 26 thereof are extracted below; “22. Whether the age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance the age of superannuation, the date with effect from which the enhancement should be made falls within the realm of policy. The High Court in ordering that the decision of the State Government to accept the proposal to enhance the age of superannuation must date back to 29-6-2002 has evidently lost sight of the above factual background, more specifically (i) the rejection of the original proposal on 22-9-2009; and (ii) the judgment of the Division Bench dated 17-1-20124 refusing to set aside the order rejecting the proposal on 22-9-2009 which has attained finality. But there is a more fundamental objection to the basis of the decision of the High Court. The infirmity in the judgment lies in the fact that the High Court has trenched upon the realm of policy making and has assumed to itself, jurisdiction over a matter which lies in the domain of the executive. Whether the age of superannuation should be increased and if so, the date from which this should be effected is a matter of policy into which the High Court ought not to have entered. “26. The High Court’s observation that the Government Order on 30-9-2012 increasing the age of superannuation prospectively is arbitrary seems to be based on the premise that the respondent employees have a vested right to the increase in the age of retirement on the passage of the resolution by Noida Authority. However, Section 19 of the Act stipulates that regulations — which would include amendments as in this case — will require the previous approval of the State Government. The employees will have a vested right to the increased age of superannuation only after the Service Regulations are modified upon approval of the State Government, and from such date as may be prescribed by the Government. Para 1(ii) of the Government Order issued on 30-9-2012 clearly and in unambiguous terms states that the order shall come into force prospectively. The government order can be given retrospective application only if expressly stated or inferred through necessary implication. Para 1(ii) of the Government Order issued on 30-9-2012 clearly and in unambiguous terms states that the order shall come into force prospectively. The government order can be given retrospective application only if expressly stated or inferred through necessary implication. Therefore, the respondent employees could not have claimed a vested right that the enhancement in the age of retirement should be made effective from the date on which Noida Authority had resolved to submit a proposal for the approval of the Government.” 19. A similar view was also taken in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das , [ (2023) 16 SCC 462 ] vis-a-vis rejecting the claim of parity of age of superannuation by Ayush Doctor working in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS), Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) with the enhanced age of superannuation with Ayush doctors working in Ministry of Ayush and CGHS Hospitals. Paragraph 48 is extracted below: “48 . We may only say that the entire approach of the High Court towards the present litigation was incorrect. We are a bit disappointed to observe that the High Court dealt with the present litigation in a very casual manner. First, the High Court went to the extent of granting interim relief extending the period of service beyond 60 years till the disposal of the Original Petition by the CAT. By virtue of such interim order which the High Court ordinarily should not grant, the respondent No. 1 although was to retire in 2018 yet continued in service till 2021. It is only when this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the High Court while issuing notice that the service of the respondent No. 1 came to an end. The Court or the Tribunal should, therefore, be slow and circumspect in granting interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated. But if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior. The Court or the Tribunal should, therefore, be slow and circumspect in granting interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated. But if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the High Court was conscious of the fact as very much recorded in the impugned order that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Research Assistant and was functioning as a Researcher under the Research Council and his service conditions were also different compared to the AYUSH doctors serving with the Ministry of AYUSH. The High Court misdirected itself saying that the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation can also be granted if the duties performed are the same like AYUSH doctors. We fail to understand how can the Court fix the age of superannuation of an employee saying that he is very much devoted towards his job. The age of superannuation is always governed by statutory rules & other service conditions.” 20. Factually, it was decided to retire the employees of the Respondent-Corporation on attaining the age of 60 years as per the decision of the Board through circular dated 11.07.2022 in terms of the provisions of Section 175 of the Companies Act. This circular was referred to in the Board meeting held on 30.09.2022. The resolution reads as under: ITEM NO.4: To take note of passing resolution through circulation for the action taken by the Managing Director to consider the proposal to superannuate the employees of age 60 years working in APSHCL It is informed to the board that a resolution for proposal to Superannuate the employees of age 60 years working in APSHCL has been passed by the board through circulation on 11th day of the July 2022 in terms of the provisions of Section 175 of the Companies Act, 2013. The following resolution was passed by the board through circulation. The following resolution was passed by the board through circulation. "RESOLVED THAT the consent of the Board be and is hereby accorded to the proposal to retire the employees who have attained the superannuation age of 60 years on or after 01.01.2022 in Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited." "RESOLVED FURTHER THAT the Board has authorized the Managing Director of the company to make necessary steps with regard to the retirement of the employees who have attained the superannuation age of 60 years as on 01.01.2022 in Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited and to do all such things necessary in this regard." The Circular resolution was noted and taken on record by the Board. 21. In view of the factual and legal position, no case is made out for the Petitioners and accordingly writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.