CONSUMERS GUIDANCE SOCIETY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid three public interest litigations have been filed claiming for identical relief, which is essentially as follows:

(2.) All these matters have been clubbed for analogous hearing. The brief facts, bereft of all unnecessary details, are as follows:

(3.) The 4th respondent in PIL.No.84 of 2014 was appointed as Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh on 30.04.2013 and was to attain superannuation on 28.03.2014 on completion of 60 years. During his tenure as the Chief Secretary to the State Government, there have been adverse remarks against his functioning which were more glaring when the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out the same in its judgment in Criminal Appeal of Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh. Apart from the said case there have been several remarks in the way the administrative work was carried out by him. Instead of allowing the 4th respondent to be retired on attaining 60 years, the Government of Andhra Pradesh hastily issued the impugned order granting four months' extension to him without assigning any reasons for not promoting the eligible persons working as Special Chief Secretaries. As per Rule 16(1) and its 3rd proviso governing the order of extension mentioned in the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (for short, "the Rules") in addition to the overriding consideration of the Public Interest, the following conditions need to be satisfied for granting extension.