MOHAMMAD YAKUB Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is working as Electrician-cum-Mechanic in the 3rd respondent college filed this writ petition questioning the action of the respondent in not releasing the grant-in-aid from 1-1-1990 to 30-9-1991, the date on which the petitioner retired from service of the respondent institution on attaining the age of 60 years.

(2.) The facts of this case are that while the petitioner was working as Electrician-cum- Mechanic in the 3rd respondent college, on the basis of the instructions given by the college, the 3rd respondent-college served notice dated 15-4-1989 stating that he will be retired from service on 30-9-1989 on attaining the age of 58 years which was fixed as retirement age for the Mechanics. Questioning the said notice, the petitioner seemed to have filed Writ Petition No. 12816 of 1989 and obtained interim orders for continuance of service in the 3rd respondent college and for payment of salaries also. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years on 30-9-1991. But the respondents 1 and 2 seemed to have not released the grant-in- aid from 1-1-1990 to 30-9-1991. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) Admittedly, the Supreme Court having upheld the age of retirement of the Mechanics as 58 years, directed the authorities concerned in the State to pay the salaries to those employees who worked beyond 58 years by virtue of the interim orders and who were continued in service till 60 years. But at the same time, the Apex Court held that the said period will not count for purpose of working out pensionary benefits. In case of the petitioner, this Court in W.P.M.P.No. 3176 of 1990 in W.P-No. 12816 of 1989 not only directed continuance of the petitioner, but also directed the authorities concerned to continue to pay the salaries.