LexK. ANANDA RAO ETC. versus SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
287
K. ANANDA RAO ETC.
v.
SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. ETC.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.1045-1055 of 2018)
in
(Civil Appeal Nos.10276, 10277, 10279, 10281, 10282, 10318, 10319,
10320, 10321, 10324 and 10328 of 2017)
MARCH 07, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law – Consequential Benefits – Bifurcation of the
erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh – On 05.08.2015, GO issued by
the Government of Andhra Pradesh raising the age of
superannuation from 58 years to 60 years – By Resolution dated
18.06.2016, the Resolution dated 05.08.2015 was kept in abeyance
– Challenged – High Court directed the government to consider the
proposals submitted for enhancement of age of superannuation and
take decision thereupon – Various SLPs filed – Tagged – Pending
matters, the government gave in-principle approval for enhancement
of the age of superannuation vide GO dated 27.06.2017 – GO dated
08.08.2017 issued by the government amended the GO dated
27.06.2017 stating that the orders shall come into force w.e.f
02.06.2014 – On 09.08.2017 while disposing of the appeals,
Supreme Court ordered that all the employees who superannuated
on account of attainment of age of 58 yrs on 02.06.2014 or
thereafter are entitled to the protection of their service upto 60 years
of age and to all ‘’consequential benefits’’ arising therefrom –
Present contempt petitions filed submitting inter alia that in terms of
the said order, “consequential benefits” must include all back wages
even for the period the petitioners had not actually worked in their
respective organizations – Held: After the policy decision was taken
on 05.08.2015 to raise the age of superannuation from 58 years to
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
287
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 287
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 5 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
289
dealt with in newly inserted Section 3A in Andhra Pradesh State
Reorganization AExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.