R. Kantha Rao, J. - (1.) The petitioners, who are the employees of the religious institutions of 8 temples specified in Rule 36 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were directed to retire at the age of 58 years by various proceedings mentioned in the respective writ petitions. Challenging the said action, they filed the present writ petitions seeking a Writ of mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings whereunder the petitioners were directed to retire from service at the age of 58 years as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Rule 43 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 888, Revenue (Endowments -I) Department, dated 08 -12 -2000 and contrary to Act 4 of 2014 and consequently to declare that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service till the completion of 60 years of age in terms of The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (Act 4 of 2014) [the Superannuation Act, for short] and further direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service till they complete the age of 60 years with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The material facts pleaded by the petitioners in the writ petitions may be stated as follows: "(a) The 1st respondent issued the Rules through G.O.Ms. No. 888, dated 08 -12 -2000, whereunder separate provisions were made applicable to certain temples (called special Eight Temples) special rules were framed which start from Rule 36 onwards, Rules 1 to 35 are general provisions, which apply to all the temples and there are special provisions for eight temples specified in Rule 36, which are applicable only to eight temples. The general provisions specified in Rules 1 to 35 except Rules 5 and 16 apply to eight temples specified in Rule 36, in addition to the special provisions from Rules 37 to 47. (b) As per Rule 43(3) of the Rules, Fundamental Rule 56 as in force and amended from time to time, in addition to the other Fundamental Rules specified therein, shall apply to the employees of eight institutions. F.R. 56 is omitted and in its place, The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 was enacted. As per Sec. 3(1) of the Superannuation Act, every government employee not being a workman and not belonging to Last Grade Service, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of month in which he attains the age of 58 years. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has amended the said Act through Act 4 of 2014 which was published in the Government Gazette on 27 -6 -2014. As per the amended Act, the age of superannuation is raised from 58 to 60 years, in addition to other amendments to the main Act. The contention of the petitioners is that in view of the amendment to the Fundamental Rules, the Superannuation Act and Rule 43 of the Rules, they are entitled to continue in service till completion of the age of 60 years. Their version is that for employees of the eight institutions specified in Rule 36, the service conditions of the employees of these institutions are governed by the State Government Rules insofar as pay scales, allowances and age of retirement. Their grievance is that even though as per Rules they are entitled to continue in service in the respective temples till completion of the age of 60 years, the 3rd respondent -Devasthanam directed them to retire from service on completion of 58 years. (c) The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 2 and 3 having observed that the Rules in G.O.Ms. No. 888, dated 08 -12 -2000, hold the field and are applicable to the petitioners and inspite of the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 9986 of 2015 and batch, observing that the special provisions under the Rules in G.O.Ms. No. 888, dated 08 -12 -2000, apply to the special eight institutions and therefore, Fundamental Rules are applicable to the employees of the said eight institutions as per Rule 43 of the said Rules, passed orders directing the petitioners to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years, which is contrary to law. It is submitted by the petitioners that the Rules framed in G.O.Ms. No. 888, dated 08 -12 -2000, apply to their case whereunder Rule 43 clearly states that the age of superannuation of the employees of the special eight institutions are governed by the Fundamental Rules as amended from time to time which are made applicable to these institutions. Therefore, according to them, in view of Act 4 of 2014 made effective from 02 -6 -2014, the same is applicable to the employees of special eight temples. They contended that Rule 43 of the Rules makes it clear that the Fundamental Rules of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh as amended from time to time apply to the special eight institutions with regard to the age of retirement. Now the Government of Andhra Pradesh has enforced Act 4 of 2014 brought into force from 02 -6 -2014 and therefore, the same would automatically apply to the respective temples wherein the petitioners were working. Thus, they contended that there is no need of any further orders to be given by the Government to these eight institutions enhancing the age of retirement. They stated that Rule 40 of the Rules clearly stipulates that the employees of the special eight temples would retire on par with the Government employees of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Rules are so clear and that the respondents 2 and 3 issued orders illegally directing the petitioners to retire from service. (d) Thus, under these circumstances, they filed the present writ petitions to set aside the orders whereunder they were directed to retire from service and to issue a direction to the respondents to continue them in service till they complete the age of 60 years."
(3.) The respondents 2 and 3 filed separate counters. The principal contention of the respondents 2 and 3 in their respective counter affidavits may be stated as follows: "(a) As per Rule 9 of the Rules, the petitioners will attain the age of superannuation on completing 58 years of age. The 3rd respondent issued 30 days mandatory notice directing the petitioners to retire from service on the respective dates mentioned therein. The notice was issued as per Rule 9 of the Rules framed under G.O.Ms. No. 888, dated 08 -12 -2000. These Rules are in vogue for the employees working in the Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments except the servants of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. It is submitted that the Rules framed under G.O.Ms. No. 888, dated 08 -12 -2000, are applicable to all the temple employees and special provisions are made applicable to the 8 major temples from Rule 36 onwards. Even Rule 36 makes it clear that the Rules from Rule 36 are made in addition to the other Rules and except Rules 5 and 16, the other Rules shall be applicable to 8 major temples and institutions. Therefore, according to the respondents, Rule 9 of the said Rules is applicable to the petitioners and the petitioners shall retire at the age of 58 years. (b) Nextly, it is contended that Rule 43 of the Rules deals with Pay, Dearness Allowance (DA), House Rent Allowance (HRA) and other allowances which are on par with the State Government employees. Further, Rule 43(2) of the Rules mandates that a former approval from the Commissioner of Endowments shall however be obtained for fixing DA, HRA and other allowances. Further, Rule 43(3) of the Rules specifies about the application of provisions of Fundamental Rules to the 8 major temples which states that F.R. 56 shall apply to the employees. F.R. 56 is omitted and the Superannuation Act was made applicable to the Government employees for their retirement. This Act was amended by Act 4 of 2014 by inserting the words Sixty Years in place of Fifty Eight Years. The superannuation of temple employees is governed by Rule 9 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 888, dated 08 -12 -2000. Till the amendment is carried out to the Rules, the age of retirement has to be considered as 58 years and not 60 years. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that as F.R. 56 was omitted in the Superannuation Act i.e. Act 4 of 2014, the same would apply to the 8 major institutions cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination. It is further contended that the amended Act 4 of 2014, dated 27 -6 -2014, is not applicable to the petitioners as the Rules framed under G.O.Ms. No. 888, dated 08 -12 -2000, particularly Rule 9 of the Rules prescribes the age of superannuation of the temple employees as 58 years which is applicable to the petitioners. Therefore, it is contended that the amendment to the Superannuation Act cannot be applied to the petitioners as the petitioners are not Government employees and they being the temple employees are governed by G.O.Ms. No. 888, dated 08 -12 -2000. In respect of the Government employees, Act 4 of 2014 enhanced the age of retirement by two years i.e. 58 years to 60 years but the similar amendment is not brought to the Rules governing the service conditions of the temple employees and therefore, the temple employees have to retire by 58 years as per the Rules framed thereunder. Thus, the version of the respondents is that unless an amendment is brought to the Rules and G.O.Ms. No. 888, dated 08 -12 -2000, the petitioners, who are the employees of 8 major temples, cannot seek extension of the age of superannuation beyond 58 years. A policy decision to enhance the age of Government employees has been taken by the State Government by enacting Act 4 of 2014 but the said Act is not applicable to the employees of 8 major temples. Unless the said Act 4 of 2014 is specifically made applicable to the employees of the 8 major temples, they have to retire on attaining the age of 58 years but they cannot claim the age of superannuation in terms of Act 4 of 2014. (c) It is submitted that Rule 43(3) of the Rules speaks of the application of pay and allowances but not the age of superannuation. In Rule 9 of the Rules, it is categorically mentioned that the age of superannuation of every office holder or servant shall be 58 years except in the case of attenders and watchmen whose age of superannuation shall be 60 years. Since as per Act No. 23 of 1984, F.R. 56 is completely omitted and in view of the fact that Rule 43(3) of the Rules provides that provisions of Fundamental Rules as in force and amended from time to time shall apply. The petitioners are governed by Rule 9 of the Rules framed under G.O.Ms. No. 888, dated 08 -12 -2000. Thus, it is asserted by the respondents that except Rule 9 of the Rules, there is no other provision available in respect of the age of superannuation of the petitioners and therefore, they have to retire on completing the age of 58 years in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules. (d) It is further submitted that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms. No. 147, Finance (HRM -IV) Department, dated 30 -6 -2014 by extending the age of superannuation to the Government employees from 58 to 60 years and in the said Government Orders, it is categorically specified that the extension of age from 58 years to 60 years is applicable only to the categories mentioned in Clauses (i) to (iv) read with sub -section (6) of Sec. 2 of the Superannuation Act and hence the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of extension of age on par with the Government employees. The petitioners did not mention about the Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 147, dated 30 -6 -2014, whereunder the Government have categorically stated that the said G.Os are applicable only to the categories mentioned in Clauses (i) to (iv) read with sub -section (6) of Sec. 2 of the Superannuation Act. The category of temple employees does not come under the purview of the Superannuation Act and hence the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of extension of the age of superannuation on par with the Government employees. (e) Contending as above, the respondents sought to dismiss the writ petitions.";