K NAGARAJ D SHANKARAN D SUBBA RAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:CHIEF SECRETARY OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) IN the elections held to the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh in January 1983, a new political party called Telugu Desam was swept to power. It assumed office on 9/01/1983. On 8/02/1983 an order (G.O.Ms. No. 36) was issued by the government of Andhra Pradesh stating that it had decided to reduce the age of superannuation of all government employees, other than in the Last Grade Service, from 58 to 55 years. Two notifications issued in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 read with Article 313 of the Constitution were appended to that order. The relevant Fundamental Rules were amended by the first notification, while the corresponding rules of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules were amended by the second notification. By these notifications, every government servant, whether ministerial or non-ministerial but not belonging to the last grade service, who had already attained the age of 55 years was to retire from service with effect from 28/02/1983. Speaking to the government employees in the Secretariat premises the next day, the Chief Minister justified the reduction of the retirement age from 58 to 55 years on the ground that it had become necessary to provide greater employment opportunities to the youths. Over 18,000.00 government employees and 10.000 public sector employees were superannuated as A result of the order.

(3.) ANOTHER affidavit was filed on behalf of the government of Andhra Pradesh, after the rule nisi was issued in the Writ Petition. That affidavit is sworn by Shri A.K. Sharma, Deputy secretary to government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance and Planning. It is stated in that affidavit that the question of the age of superannuation was not referred to the one-man Pay Commission of Shri A. Krishnaswamy, which was appointed by the Andhra Pradesh government on 3/11/1977; that the recommendation made by the Pay Commission was casual and was not based on relevant criteria; that as many as 12,04,008 educated youths were left without employment on 30/09/1979 as a result of the unwarranted increase in the age of superannuation from 55 to 58: that the number of unemployed youths had grown to 17,84,69 9/12/1982; and that, the age of retirement was reduced because it is the duty of the State, within the limits of its economic capacity and development to make effective provision to solve the unemployment problem. The rest of the averments in this affidavit are on the same lines as in the affidavit of Shri R. Parthasarathy.