ORDER : NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. The common issue in all the writ petitions is with regard to the enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022. 2. The Petitioners are working in Andhra Pradesh Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institution Society (herein after referred to as ‘APTWREIS’ for brevity) in teaching faculty. Originally, the age of superannuation of the employees of the Society, other than class IV employees, was 58 years. While so, the State Government issued A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Amendment Act, 2014, enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years to the State Government employees. 3. Thereafter, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 27.06.2017, according approval to enhance the age of superannuation to employees working in institutions listed in Schedules IX and X of the A.P.Re-organization Act, 2014 subject to the decision of the Board of Directors/ Managing Committees of the respective legal entities. Subsequently, the State Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.138, dated 08.08.2017, enhancing the age of superannuation of employees in Schedules IX and X of the A.P.State Re-organization Act, 2014 stating that employees shall not be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years and shall be continued up to 60 years. Consequently, the employees of the Respondent-Society continued till the age of 60 years. 4. While so, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV-FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022, amending the A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, by enhancing the age of superannuation to 62 years. Consequently, Respondent-Society is said to have been sent a proposal vide letter dated 20.05.2022 to Respondent No.2 for enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years on par with State Government employees. Since no further steps are taken on the proposals of the Respondent-Society, the present writ petitions are filed seeking for continuance till the Petitioners attaining the age of 62 years. 5. In the counter filed by APTWREIS, it is stated that the Society was created pursuant to a policy decision in the year 1998 for tribal children with required autonomy and functional flexibility to take care of enrolment, retention, improvement and imparting quality education to poor tribal children in the State. In the said process, the Respondent-Society was established vide G.O.Ms.Nos.51, 52 and 53 Social Welfare (TW-Edn.I) Department, dated 03.06.1998 respectively. 6. In the said process, the Respondent-Society was established vide G.O.Ms.Nos.51, 52 and 53 Social Welfare (TW-Edn.I) Department, dated 03.06.1998 respectively. 6. Subsequently, the A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society was bifurcated into separate two Societies namely A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society and Respondent- Society i.e. APTWREIS with effect from 01.06.1999. It is stated that Respondent-Society is registered under the A.P.Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli and the Management of the Society is vested in Board of Governors with Hon’ble Minister for Tribal Welfare as Chairman and the Principal Secretary to Government, Tribal Welfare Department as Vice-Chairman and other Government Officials as Members. It is the further plea that Respondent-Society is an autonomous body receiving 100% Grant-in-Aid funds from the State Government and is a distinct entity. After bifurcation of the State, Respondent-Society was further bifurcated into two Societies i.e. Telangana Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institution Society and A.P.Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institution Society. It is stated that the State Government had issued a clarification vide circular dated 23.09.2022 stating that the Amendment Act is applicable only to certain categories and that the enhancement of age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years is not applicable to the employees of Respondent-Society. It is further pleaded that employees working in Respondent-Society are governed by separate Bye-laws and the G.O.Ms.No.15, Finance (HR.IV- FR&LR) Department, dated 31.01.2022 cannot be extended to the benefit of the Petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Respondent-Society is a Government entity and there cannot be any discrimination in matters of age of superannuation. It is further pleaded that the benefit of age of superannuation should be extended to the Petitioners also as they are Government employees for all practical purposes. The further contention of learned counsel is that Education and Teaching are obligations of the State and the benefit of the age of superannuation should be extended akin to all the teaching faculties in the State irrespective of whether they are employees of the Society or teachers in the schools run by the State Government. The learned counsel also pointed out the difference in age of superannuation in similar Society established for the purpose of Backward Classes i.e. Mahatma Jyothiba Phule Andhra Pradesh Backward Class Welfare Residential Institution Society (for brevity ‘MJPAPBCWRIS’), where the age of superannuation is at par with Government employees i.e. 62 years. 8. The learned counsel also pointed out the difference in age of superannuation in similar Society established for the purpose of Backward Classes i.e. Mahatma Jyothiba Phule Andhra Pradesh Backward Class Welfare Residential Institution Society (for brevity ‘MJPAPBCWRIS’), where the age of superannuation is at par with Government employees i.e. 62 years. 8. Learned standing counsel and learned Government Pleader would contend that age of superannuation is governed by the Bye-laws framed by the Society and the Petitioners being fully aware of the age of superannuation prescribed under the Bye- laws, cannot turn around and seek for continuation beyond the age specified in the Bye-laws. It is further submitted that the enhancement of age of superannuation is a policy decision to be taken by the State Government and unless and until the Bye-laws are amended, the mere recommendation by the Board of Directors/ Managing Committee of the Respondent-Society would not suffice. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in G.Rama Mohan Rao and another v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary and Chairman, Agricultural Marketing and Co- operative Department and another , 2017 (3) ALT 1 and a judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22719 of 2022 and batch dated 30.08.2023. 9. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned standing counsel and learned Government Pleader. 10. The A.P.Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institution Society (APTWREIS) is established for improving the quality of education for tribal children and an independent legal entity with its Bye-laws governing the conditions of services. The Bye-laws of the society provide for Cadre Strength, Method of Appointment and Appointing Authority, Qualifications & Other Conditions of Recruitment, Disciplinary Rules, Unit of Appointment, Quotas, etc. among other conditions of service. The Rule 17 thereof provides for age of superannuation. The same reads as under: 17. Other Conditions of Service: (i) The age of Superannuation of personnel in all categories of employees of the Society other than Class IV employees shall be 58 years. In the case of Class IV employees, the age of superannuation is 60 years. The Rule 17 thereof provides for age of superannuation. The same reads as under: 17. Other Conditions of Service: (i) The age of Superannuation of personnel in all categories of employees of the Society other than Class IV employees shall be 58 years. In the case of Class IV employees, the age of superannuation is 60 years. (ii) In respect of any service matters, not specifically dealt with in these Rules, the relevant provisions of the A.P.State & Sub-ordinate Service Rules, A.P. Educational Subordinate Service Rules, A.P. Education Service Rules, A.P.Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act 1984 and the Amendment Act 1985, The A.P. Regulation of appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay structure Act, 1994 as amended by Act 3 of 1998 of as amended from time to time along with the executive orders and clarificatory instructions, shall apply "Mutatis Mutandis" to the officers and staff of A.P.T.W.A.R.E.I. Society. 11. This age of superannuation was enhanced to 60 years vide G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 27.06.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.138 dated 08.08.2017. In the light of the same, the employees of the Respondent-Society are continuing till the age of 60 years. 12. The amendment to the A.P.Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, whereunder the age of retirement was enhanced to 62 years vide G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022, does not have any application to the employees of the Society as they are governed by independent rules and it is not an automatic amendment. In the light of the specific age of superannuation, the continuation of Petitioners beyond the age specified in the Bye-laws/ Rules would amount to virtual amendment to the Rule/Bye-law and the same 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.” 13. The condition of service cannot be altered by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The condition of service cannot be altered by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. 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 1 2023 Supreme (SC) 801 31 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.” 15. 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 2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 466 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.” 16. 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.” 17. It is pertinent to note that a Division Bench of this Court in G.Rama Mohan Rao ’s case (1 supra) was considering a scenario where exactly similar to the present one. At that point of time, the issue that fell for consideration was whether the employees of Respondent-Society are also entitled for enhanced age of superannuation i.e. 58 to 60 years on the basis of resolutions of the Respondent-Society. The Division Bench held that consent of the State Government is required and mere resolution of Respondent-Society would not suffice. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below: 183. The decision of the Board of Directors/Managing Committees to request the State Government to enhance the age of superannuation is tentative and not final. It is subject to the proposal being accepted by the State Government. While some of these undertakings appear to be profit making, some appear to be fully funded by the State Government. The question whether enhancing the age of superannuation would increase its financial burden, which it finds it difficult to bear, are also matters to be considered by the State Government. These factors would vary from one undertaking to another.’ 190. While some of these undertakings appear to be profit making, some appear to be fully funded by the State Government. The question whether enhancing the age of superannuation would increase its financial burden, which it finds it difficult to bear, are also matters to be considered by the State Government. These factors would vary from one undertaking to another.’ 190. The earlier G.Os were issued by the Government of A.P. without these legal entities amending its rules/regulations/byelaws, governing the age of superannuation and without the prior approval of the sole majority shareholder i.e., the State Government as required under the Articles of Association byelaws of these legal entities. As the Rules and Regulations, by which the petitioners are governed, stipulate 58 years as the age of retirement, these employees cannot claim any right to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. It is only if the request of these Companies/Corporations/Societies, for amendment of its byelaws/rules and regulations, are approved by the State Government, and the rules/byelaws/regulations are amended thereafter in accordance with law, would their employees then be governed by the enhanced age of superannuation prescribed under the Rules/bye-laws. 191. Since the Board owned Companies! Corporations/Societies have submitted proposals, the State Government is Directors/Managing Committees of these wholly or substantially government 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 tih 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.’ 18. The said judgment was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch and a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.22719 of 2022 and batch. The said judgment was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1033 of 2022 and batch and a Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.22719 of 2022 and batch. As regards the plea of parity in the age of superannuation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Teachers Association of Government Engineering College , ( 2000 (10) SCC 527 had rejected such a plea as the terms and conditions of service as well as method of recruitment are different, as in these cases. 19. In the light of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (i) The State Government is directed to consider the feasibility for enhancement of age of superannuation of employees of Respondent-Society from 60 to 62 years as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) Till a concrete decision is taken by the State Government, the Petitioners and similar employees of Respondent-Society are not entitled for continuation beyond the age of 60 years. (iii) The Petitioners who have discharged duties pursuant to interim order of this Court shall be paid salary, however, the said period of service shall not be counted for calculating retirement benefits. (iv) No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.