K. Ananda Rao etc. vs Sri S.S. Rawat, Ias and Ors. etc.

60 years that decision was kept in abeyance by Resolution dated 18.06.2016 – This was followed by GO dated 28.06.2016 which dealt with issues like how after re-induction of the employees pursuant to enhancement of age of superannuation, the period that the employees were out of employment, was to be dealt with – It was always in contemplation that if an employee had superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years and was thereafter re-inducted in service with superannuation age being 60 years, he would not be entitled to any salary or normal emoluments for the interregnum period or gap period, but would be entitled to certain notional benefits stipulated therein – GO dated 08.08.2017 modified the earlier decision dated 27.06.2017 to the extent it made such decisions prospective and gave retrospective effect from 02.06.2014 – However, the said GO did not in any way dilute the principles as to what would be the situation in case of interregnum period or gap period as was specifically dealt with in GO dated 28.06.2016 – Situation becomes clear by further instructions issued on 11.06.2018 which again referred to gap period – Benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years came to be conferred under policy documents and finally by the GO dated 08.08.2017 – Source was in those policy documents and naturally the extent of benefits was also spelt out in those instruments issued by the Government – Mere expression “consequential benefits” would not entitle the concerned employees anything greater than what was contemplated in the policy documents issued by the State Government – No violation of the orders passed by Supreme Court – Every similarly situated employee would be entitled to the benefits conferred by policy documents but not for salary and other emoluments for the period they had not actually worked – Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of superannuation) Act, 1984 – s.3 – Andhra Pradesh Tribal Welfare Resident Educational Institution Society Retirement Rules, 1999 – r.17 – Andhra Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2014. Dismissing the Contempt Petitions, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The raising of age of superannuation by amending Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of superannuation) Act, 1984 was soon after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The concern as to what would be the situation if the employees were finally allocated to the newly carved State of Andhra Pradesh and the employees by that time had attained the age of 58 years, was dealt with in newly inserted Section 3A in Andhra Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2014. The principle was to re-induct them in the services under the State of Andhra Pradesh without any break in service. Further, if the employee had not attained the age of

60 years, he would be re-inducted; and in case he had attained the age of 60 years, what would in such cases be conferred upon the employees was notional advantage for the purpose of calculation of his pensionary benefits as if he had rendered service in the State of Andhra Pradesh. [Para 11] [309-A-C]

1.2 After the policy decision was taken on 05.08.2015 to raise the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in respect of employees of Society, that decision was kept in abeyance by Resolution dated 18.06.2016. This Resolution stated that the Government had taken stock of all the developments and had decided that the issue regarding enhancement of age of superannuation in respect of employees of the entities and institutions listed in IX and X Schedule of 2014 Act would be taken only after the issue of division of assets and liabilities of the concerned institutions between the two States was settled and the allotment of employees was finalized. This was followed by GO dated 28.06.2016 which dealt with issues like how after re-induction of the employees pursuant to enhancement of age of superannuation, the period that the employees were out of employment, was to be dealt with. Such period was referred to as the interregnum period or gap period, and was then dealt with under various heads. These developments are indicative that it was always in contemplation that if an employee had superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years and was thereafter re-inducted in service with superannuation age being 60 years, he would not be entitled to any salary or normal emoluments for what was referred to as the interregnum period or gap period, but would be entitled to certain notional benefits stipulated therein. [Para 12] [309-D-G]

1.3 GO dated 08.08.2017 modified the earlier decision dated 27.06.2017 to the extent it had made such decisions prospective and now gave retrospective effect from 02.06.2014. It thus undoubtedly relaxed conditions as regards the requirement to have the rules and regulations amended after due approval by the Government. It further stated that if an employee was retired on attaining age of 58 years, he/she shall be reinstated and continued upto 60 years. However, this GO dated 08.08.2017 did not in any way depart from or dilute the principles as to what would be the situation in case of interregnum period or gap period as was specifically referred to and dealt with in memo dated 28.06.2016. The situation becomes quite clear by further instructions issued on 11.06.2018 which again referred to gap period. [Para 13] [310-B-D]

1.4 Benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years came to be conferred under policy documents and finally by the GO dated 08.08.2017. Thus, the source was in those policy documents and naturally the extent of benefits was also spelt out in those instruments issued by the Government. The Circular dated 28.06.2016 which was more or less adopted in proceedings dated 11.06.2018 must be taken to be the governing criteria in respect of such employees. Unless and until that governing criteria was departed from specifically, mere expression “consequential benefits” would not entitle the concerned employees anything greater than what was contemplated in the policy documents issued by the State Government. Therefore, no violation of the orders passed by Supreme Court is found. Every employee, who is similarly situated would be entitled to the benefits conferred by policy documents referred to above but not for salary and other emoluments for the period they had not actually worked. [Paras 17, 18] [312-D-G]

B. Prabhakar Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1985) Suppl. SCC 432: [1985] Suppl. SCR 573 – distinguished.

G. Rama Mohan Rao and Anr. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Etc. 2017(3) ALT 1(High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh); D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305 : [1983] 2 SCR 165; Sureshchandra Singh and Others v. Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. and Others (2004) 1 SCC 592 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR

937 – referred to.