Raising Superannuation Age Is Policy Matter: AP High Court Rejects State Housing Corporation Employees' Plea Seeking Retirement At 62

The 2022 GO had brought an amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 enhancing the superannuation age from 60 to 62 years.

Pursuant to that, a Board Resolution was passed in March, 2022 by the respondent-Corporation proposing to enhance the superannuation age of its employees from 60 to 62 years. Despite the Resolution, concurrence from the State Government was sought.

While writ petitions by few employees seeking continuation of service were filed in the meanwhile, the same were dismissed on account of the State Government rejecting the proposal for enhancement of superannuation age in July, 2024. Consequently, petitions were filed challenging the said rejection.

The petitioners sought continuation of service on the ground that a Committee was constituted in 2025 for examining— (i) the feasibility of enhancement of the superannuation age to 62 years for employees working in Government Institutions/Societies/Corporations included in IXth and Xth Schedules of the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014, and, (ii) the Government's decision rejecting enhancement of age of superannuation.

Against this backdrop, Justice Nyapathy Vijay held,

“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. 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.”

Background

It was alleged that the order of rejection was independently and mechanically passed by the State Government, without considering the requirement of experienced staff and financial viability of the Respondent-Corporation. Additionally, it was submitted that retirement of experienced employees in the Corporation led to difficulty in executing the work and the petitioners demanded permission to continue their services till a decision was taken.

In contrast, the Respondent-Corporation submitted that pursuant to the Board Resolution of July 2022, another resolution was passed in September, 2022, where the superannuation age was fixed at 60 years owing to the prevailing financial constraints. After considering this position, the State Government also rejected the proposal.

At the outset, the Court noted that the Respondent-Corporation was a State-owned Corporation, services of which were governed by the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited General Service Rules, Rule 4 of which mandated that 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.

In the absence of concurrence of the State Government, and in light of the September, 2022 Board Resolution wherein it was decided to retain the superannuation age as 60 years, the Court concluded,

“In view of the factual and legal position, no case is made out for the Petitioners and accordingly writ petitions are dismissed.”

Case Details:

Case Number: W.P.Nos.22056 and batch

Case Title: Yelduti Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and batch

Click Here To Read/Download Order