Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds State's Policy on Superannuation Age for Housing Corporation Employees

Court dismisses petitions challenging the State Government's decision not to enhance retirement age from 60 to 62 years for employees of A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited.

In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Nyapathy Vijay, dismissed a series of writ petitions seeking to extend the retirement age of employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited from 60 to 62 years. The decision reaffirms the principle that the enhancement of superannuation age is inherently a policy matter, requiring explicit approval from the State Government, and is not within the purview of judicial intervention.

The petitions were filed by employees of the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited who argued that a board resolution and subsequent proposals to the State Government supported their continued employment until the age of 62, aligning with the retirement age of government employees. However, the court emphasized that any change in service conditions, such as retirement age, mandates prior approval from both the Board and the State Government, as stipulated by the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984, and the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited General Service Rules.

Despite a resolution passed by the Respondent-Corporation's Board on March 22, 2022, to enhance the superannuation age, the proposal was rejected by the State Government on July 18, 2024. The government cited financial constraints and the need for a comprehensive policy review as reasons for the rejection. The court upheld this decision, noting that without a statutory amendment or governmental concurrence, any extension of service beyond the age of 60 would contradict existing service conditions.

The judgment also referenced previous Supreme Court rulings, including V.M. Gadre v. M.G. Diwan and Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala, which reinforce that retirement age determinations are policy matters not subject to judicial alteration. The court reiterated that such decisions involve broader considerations, including financial implications and administrative needs, and thus must remain within the executive's domain.

The court's decision underscores the legal principle that courts cannot unilaterally amend service conditions or anticipate policy decisions from committees or governmental bodies. The ruling effectively supports the State's authority in setting and modifying employment policies within its purview.

Bottom Line:

Enhancement of age of superannuation is a policy matter and not for the Courts to intervene. Any change in the service conditions, including retirement age, requires prior approval of the State Government and must adhere to the statutory rules.

Statutory provision(s):  

• - Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984
• - A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited General Service Rules
• - Companies Act, 2013

The dismissal of the petitions reinforces the current superannuation policy and requires adherence to established statutory procedures for any future amendments. The ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in respecting and upholding policy decisions made by the legislative and executive branches of government.

Yelduti Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2814004