Raising Superannuation Age Is Policy Decision Of State: AP High Court Dismisses AP Housing Corporation Employees’ Petitions Seeking Retirement At 62
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay has declined to extend enhanced superannuation benefits to the employees of the Respondent-Corporation, upholding the retirement age of 60 years and dismissing their petitions seeking continuation in service until 62. The Court held that superannuation age is governed by existing statutory service conditions requiring prior state approval for amendment, which was not granted, and therefore continuance beyond 60 could not be ordered.
The batch of writ petitions was filed by employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited and an affiliated federation, all of whom were working in various engineering and administrative capacities and had either attained or were about to attain the age of 60 years. The dispute arose after the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 31.01.2022 amending the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 to enhance the age of superannuation of Government employees from 60 to 62 years. Following this, the Corporation’s Board passed a resolution dated 22.03.2022 approving enhancement of the age of retirement of its employees from 60 to 62 years and forwarded the proposal to the State Government for approval.
While the proposal was pending consideration, the Board issued a circular resolution dated 11.07.2022 under Section 175 of the Companies Act withdrawing the earlier resolution, and subsequently passed another resolution on 30.09.2022 confirming that the age of superannuation of its employees would remain 60 years, citing the corporation’s financial condition. Thereafter, the State Government, through Letter No.1699176/VC. A2/2022-2 dated 18.07.2024, rejected the proposal for enhancement of the age of retirement.
Multiple employees challenged the rejection, the Board’s withdrawal resolution, and subsequent relieving orders issued by district-level authorities who, according to the petitioners, were not competent under the Service Rules. Some petitioners also cited the subsequent G.O.Rt.No.1545 dated 22.08.2025 constituting a Committee to study feasibility of extending the benefit to corporations included in the IX and X Schedules of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, asserting that they should be allowed to continue until the end of such consideration.
The Respondent-Corporation filed a counter stating that the Board had already reviewed and withdrawn its earlier decision due to severe financial constraints and the resolution dated 30.09.2022 reaffirmed 60 years as the retirement age. It contended that enhancement of the superannuation age is a policy decision requiring prior approval of the State Government under Rule 4 of the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited General Service Rules, 1998, and since the Government had rejected the proposal, no entitlement existed for employees to continue beyond 60 years.
The Court recorded that the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation is a State-owned entity whose service conditions are governed by the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited General Service Rules framed pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.33 dated 26.05.1998. It noted that Rule 4 mandates that “any change or alteration or modification by way of an amendment to these rules shall be made with prior approval of the Board and Government.” The Court stated that the definition of Government under Rule 3(n) refers to the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
It observed that the original age of superannuation under Rule 21 was 58 years and was later enhanced to 60 years pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 27.06.2017 applicable to institutions listed in Schedules IX and X of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014. The Court recorded that although the Board passed a resolution on 22.03.2022 enhancing the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years, the resolution required Government concurrence which was never granted.
The judgment stated that the subsequent Government letter dated 18.07.2024 rejected the proposal, and this rejection had earlier led to dismissal of a previous batch of writ petitions. The Court recorded that the petitioners relied on G.O.Rt.No.1545 dated 22.08.2025, but stated that “the constitution of a Committee… per se, cannot be a ground for seeking enhancement of superannuation at the age of 62 years pending consideration.” It observed that enhancement of retirement age is a policy decision having financial and administrative implications, and that “this Court… cannot grant any relief to the Petitioners.”
The Court relied on multiple Supreme Court decisions. It quoted V.M. Gadre v. M.G. Diwan stating that “it would not be permissible for the Court to substitute all the existing service conditions by a totally new set of service conditions.” It quoted Dr. Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala observing “it is well-settled that the age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of the State Government.” The Court further cited New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. B.D. Singhal noting that “whether the age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy.”
Referring to Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, the Court recorded “the Court or the Tribunal should, therefore, be slow and circumspect in granting interim relief for continuation in service… if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service.”
The Court also recorded the Board’s resolution dated 30.09.2022 which stated: “It is informed to the board that a resolution for proposal to Superannuate the employees of age 60 years… has been passed… on 11th day of July 2022 in terms of the provisions of Section 175 of the Companies Act… RESOLVED THAT the consent of the Board be and is hereby accorded to the proposal to retire the employees who have attained the superannuation age of 60 years…” The Court noted that this resolution was validly taken on record.
The Court concluded its directions stating that “no case is made out for the Petitioners and accordingly writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Veladi Sai Sri Harsha, Sri Hanumantha Rao Bachina, Sri Nichenametla Nagaraju, Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, Sri B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, Smt. Naga Chandrika D.
For the Respondents: Sri K. Mallikharjuna Moorthy, Government Pleader for Services I, Government Pleader for Services II, Government Pleader for Cooperation, Sri A.V.G. Madhava Rao, Sri P. Nagendra Reddy.
Case Title: Yelduti Srinivas & Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Case Number: W.P. Nos. 22056, 19058, 21706, 22854, 22877, 28871, 29604, 29624, 29811 of 2025 and 7752 of 2024
Bench: Justice Nyapathy Vijay
