B PRABHAKAR RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tossed about by the Executive, the Legislature and, we are sorry to say, by us (the Judiciary) too, and therefore, totally bewildered, several civil servants, employees of public sector corporations and teachers working under various local authorities are now before us wanting to know where they stand and to what justice and relief they are entitled. In Feb., 1983, the Government of Andhra Pradesh decided to reduce the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 to 55 years. The Government also issued directives to local authorities and public corporations under its control to do likewise. The age of superannuation was in fact 55 years to begin with. But, earlier, in the year 1979, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had raised the age of superannuation to 58 years, presumably, because of the increased average human longevity in India, the better health and medical facilities available, the improved standard of living, the usefulness in service of experienced employees, the employment situation and potential, and such other relevant considerations. But in February 1983, the Government decided to reduce the age of superannuation. In order to give effect to their policy of reversal, i.e. the policy of reducing the age of superannuation from 58 to 55, the Government amended R. 56(a) of the Fundamental Rules and R. 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules by substituting the figure '55' for the figure '58' and by making a special provision that those who had already attained the age of 55 years and were continuing in service beyond that age on 8-2-1983 shall retire from service on the afternoon of 28-2-1983. The notifications by which these amendments were carried out were followed by another notification dated 17-2-1983 deleting the proviso to Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rules which protected a civil servant against a change of his conditions of service to his detriment after he entered service. This was followed by the promulgation of the Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No. 5 of 1983 regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public service and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the officers and servants of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Clause 10 of the Ordinance provided that 'every Government employee, not being a workman and not belonging to Last Grade Service shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-five years.' In the case of Government employees belonging to the Last Grade Service, it was provided. that they shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which they attain the age of sixty-years. Clause 18(1) provided that the proviso to R. 2 of the Fundamental Rules shall be and shall be deemed always to have been omitted. Now immediately after the notifications reducing the age of superannuation from 58 to 55 were issued, a large number of Government employees, employees of public sector corporations and teachers working under various local authorities filed writ petitions in this Court as well as in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the vires of the provisions reducing the age of superannuation. After promulgation of the ordinance, they were permitted to amend the petitions to question the appropriate provisions of the ordinance too. The petitions in this Court were heard at great length for several days by Chandrachud, C. J., Pathak, J. and S. Mukharji, J. and judgment was reserved on 27-7-83. The judgment was however pronounced only on January 18, 1985 (reported in AIR 1985 SC 551). The impugned provisions were upheld and all the writ petitions were dismissed. In the meanwhile much water had flown under the bridge. There were agitations and agreements. There were twists and turns of political power. There were amendments to the legislation; once more raising the age of superannuation. Learned counsel inform us that the subsequent events were brought to the notice of the court and that a petition was also filed to amend the writ petitions and to raise additional grounds. The Court however refused to take notice of the subsequent events and proceeded to pronounce their judgment with reference to a situation which obtained several months ago and which situation stood considerably altered and had even become unreal by the subsequent march of events. It was a great pity. Much confusion and heart-burning might have been avoided, as we shall presently see.

(2.) It is now necessary to mention in greater detail the events that followed the reduction of the age of superannuation from 58 to 55 years. We referred to agitations and agreements. It appears that soon after the reduction of the age of superannuation, there was a State-wide agitation by affected employees and on August 3, 1983, an agreement was arrived at between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Action Committee of Employees and Workers in Andhra Pradesh.

(3.) Clause (1) of the Agreement is important and may be usefully extracted. It is as follows: