*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD +WRIT APPEAL No.230/2003 and WRIT PETITION Nos.8759, 10440, 18233 & 18229 of 2003; 9519 & 21564 of 2004; 15057 of 2005 and 13241 of 2007 % 27.07.2010 WRIT APPEAL No.230/2003 Between: # Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, represented by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District ..... APPELLANTS (S) And $ J. Ramadass Raju .....RESPONDENT(S) ! Counsel for Appellant : Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao ^ Counsel for Respondent : Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED: 1. 1991 (2) SLR 287 2. 1974 (1) ALT 93 3. 2004-LLR-0-1141 4. 1995 Supp (3) SUPREME COURT CASES 653 5. 1995 Supp (3) SUPREME COURT CASES 654 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.230/2003 and WRIT PETITION Nos.8759, 10440, 18233 & 18229 of 2003; 9519 & 21564 of 2004; 15057 of 2005 and 13241 of 2007 WRIT APPEAL No.230/2003 Between: # Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, represented by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District ..... APPELLANTS (S) And $ J. Ramadass Raju .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.230/2003 and WRIT PETITION Nos.8759, 10440, 18233 & 18229 of 2003; 9519 & 21564 of 2004; 15057 of 2005 and 13241 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD) This batch of cases including one Writ Appeal and eight Writ Petitions is on the question of the age of superannuation of certain employees of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, who approached this Court with their respective writ petitions. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989 (for short – ‘the Rules’) were issued in G.O.Ms.No.1060, Revenue (Endowments-I), dated 24.10.1989, prescribing, so far as superannuation is concerned, that the age of superannuation of every employee of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams shall be regulated by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (A.P. Act 23 of 1984) as amended from time to time. This provision in Rule 12 of the Rules is further reinforced by the provision in Rule 4 of the Rules under which the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams employees were stated to be governed by the Fundamental Rules and the Subsidiary Rules issued thereunder and practically every other rule by which the State Government employees are governed including any executive orders or clarifications or executive instructions issued by the Government from time to time, which are of-course not inconsistent with the statute by which Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams is governed or the rules made under that statute. It is also seen that even prior to the rules so made in 1989 in supercession of the earlier rules, G.O.Ms.No.78, Revenue (Endowments-III) Department, dated 18.01.1985, applied the same rule to the employees of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams in respect of superannuation under Rule 10 of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Office Holders and Servants (other than hereditary office holders) Recruitment Rules, 1978. Therefore, it is clear that the provisions of the A.P. Act 23 of 1984, and the Fundamental and Subsidiary Rules issued thereunder, govern the conditions of service of the employees of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams in so far as the age of superannuation is concerned, which is in question in this batch of cases. As per Section 3(1) of the A.P. Act 23 of 1984, 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 the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. As per sub-section (2) thereof, every Government employee not being a workman but belonging to the Last Grade Service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. Explanation I to sub- section 3 thereof defined “workman” as meaning a highly skilled, or semi-skilled or unskilled artisan in industrial and work charged establishment of Government and every such workman whether in superior or last grade service, or in any service notified as inferior shall ordinarily be retained in service up to the age of sixty years as per sub-section 3, except under the contingencies specified in the two provisos thereunder. This provision under Section 3 has to be read as referring to an employee of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams in so far as its adoption for such employees is concerned by Rule 12 of the Rules. The word “Last Grade Service” is again defined by A.P. Act 23 of 1984, in Section 2(5) as meaning not only the service constituted by the Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service Rules, 1961, but also including the posts and services specified in subsidiary definition (iii) under Rule 9 of the Fundamental Rules and also including the services which are treated as ‘inferior’ under Hyderabad Civil Services Rules. The definition of “Last Grade Service” under Fundamental Rule 9 Subsidiary definition (iii) includes all service in the following appointments unless declared, by the State Government to be superior and those specified appointments under clause (b) of the definition include service in the posts, the pay of which (if fixed) or the maximum of the scale of pay attached to which does not exceed (i) Rs.475/- per mensem under the Revised Pay Scales, 1978; or (ii) Rs.1,150/- per mensem under the Revised Pay Scales, 1986; or (iii) Rs.2,375/- per mensem under the Revised Pay Scales, 1993. Therefore, either a person coming within the scope of the Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service Rules, or within the definition of ‘Last Grade Service’ under Fundamental Rule 9 subsidiary definition (iii) and serving in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams will also be entitled to the benefit of retiring from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month on which he attains the age of sixty years whether he is a workman or not unless his job or appointment is declared by the State Government to be belonging to superior service. Therefore, every Government employee/every employee of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams who either belongs to the ‘Last Grade Service’ as defined under the Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service Rules or under Fundamental Rule 9 subsidiary definition (iii) or is a ‘workman’ as defined in Section 3 of A.P. Act 23 of 1984, will have his retirement on superannuation only on attaining the age of 60 years. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is also referred to on the questions in issue herein. But, in MOHD. ISMAIL vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1], the learned Judge was considering the question of nature of service of a Traffic Inspector Grade II in the Road Transport Department and apart from considering in detail the question whether he is a workman or not within the meaning of A.P. Act 23 of 1984, had also laid down that A.P. Act 23 of 1984 and the definition of ‘workman’ contained therein is a complete code by itself and the definition of ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be imported into A.P. Act 23 of 1984. His Lordship expressed concurrence with the earlier decision of another learned Judge in SHAIK ALI vs. COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD[2] with reference to Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules which itself defines who is a workman. His Lordship Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Ramachandrarao (as His Lordship then was) held that the definition of ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be imported into Rule 231. The ratio decidendi of the decisions therefore clearly shows that in considering the question of superannuation on reaching the age of retirement of an employee of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams governed by A.P. Act 23 of 1984 by virtue of Rule 12 of their service rules, no reference need or can be made to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Judge deciding W.P.No.722 of 1993 which is the subject of W.A.No.230 of 2003 herein was adverting to the definition of “Industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and also the amending Act 46/1982 not yet coming into force, thereby not excluding the charitable institutions from the purview of industry. In view of the provisions above referred to and the decisions of two learned Judges of this Court on the aspect, the question of what would be the prescribed age of superannuation herein cannot be approached from the angle of the person being a workman or not with reference to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Of-course, it may be incidentally true even with reference to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which still stood un-amended by the Central Act 46/1982 that the employees in question herein cannot be considered to be not workmen within the meaning of that Act to be excluded from the benefits of service extended to such workmen otherwise. It is true that there was another decision in W.P.No.8335 of 1997 dated 22.06.1998 by another learned Judge of this Court with reference to a Binder Grade-I working in the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and seeking his age of superannuation to be fixed at 60 years. The learned Judge was noting that under the existing service regulations governing the employee, the age of superannuation was only 58 years, which observation seems to be not running consistent with the adoption of A.P. Act 23 of 1984 by the relevant service rules of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams employees even from 1985. The proposal said to have been sent by the Executive Officer of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams to the Government for permission to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in respect of any post referred to by the learned Judge has to be considered either as superfluous and redundant in the light of the specific statutory provisions of A.P. Act 23 of 1984 or in any view could not have overridden the provisions of that statute which was adopted by the service rules of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams employees. The decision in W.P.No.8335 of 1997 stating that Rule 12 of the relevant service rules prescribed the age of superannuation as only 58 years appears to be factually not in tune with the rules in force and the learned Judge proceeded on the assumption that it was nobody’s case before His Lordship that the rule was amended. Even otherwise, the learned Judge proceeded only on the basis that the rule provided for the age of superannuation as 58 years for that particular employee and there was no ratio decidendi in that decision which precludes positive consideration of the case of the petitioners herein in this batch of cases. If the judgment were to be understood as laying down anything contrary to the statutory provisions or the statutory service rules, then it has to be considered as not laying down any good law. The decisions reported in PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM vs. RAMACHANDRAN[3]; TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR[4]; TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAM vs. GOVT. OF A.P. AND OTHERS[5]; and the judgment in W.P.Nos.9756 of 1998 and batch by a Division Bench of this Court dated 21.11.2001 were also incidentally referred to throw light on the question whether a Devasthanam or a religious institution would have been an ‘industry’ and whether any activity carried on by it in any of its wings can be considered an ‘industry’ within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, as already stated, the question does not assume much significance or relevance when the employees in question herein are either coming within the definition of ‘workman’ under Explanation I to sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the A.P. Act 23 of 1984 or are persons belonging to Last Grade Service within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 3 read with clause (5) of Section 2 of the A.P. Act 23 of 1984 entitled to claim the age of superannuation to be only 60 years. It may also be incidentally noted that the Apex Court in the decisions four and five supra, left the question open, while the Division Bench in the last of the decisions referred to supra refused to go into the constitutional validity of A.P. Act 23 of 1984 and referred the petitioners before it to an Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court without ultimately deciding any question. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, has been fair enough in his usual fairness to furnish a copy of the Circular in Roc.No.B3/5814/87 dated 22.05.1987 issued by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams about adopting the revised pay scales of 1986 of the State Government to the employees of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams from which it is seen that the post of a Foreman carried a maximum pay of Rs.1100/- per month while the other posts including the Binder Grade-I carry much lesser scales of pay in the maximum. So, all the posts which are involved in this batch of cases necessarily come within the definition of Last Grade Service under subsidiary definition (iii) of Rule 9 of the Fundamental Rules irrespective of the question whether they are highly skilled or semi-skilled or unskilled artisans in industrial and work charged establishments of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams within the meaning of the definition of ‘workman’ under the Act. So, either way they are entitled to the reliefs claimed in the writ petitions respectively and the Writ Appeal filed by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams against grant of such a relief in W.P.No.722 of 1993 shall fail. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal No.230 of 2003 is dismissed without costs and the Writ Petition Nos.875 _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J. _________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 27th July 2010 CVRK L.R. copy to be marked. b/o CVRK [1] 1991 (2) SLR 287 [2] 1974 (1) ALT 93 [3] 2004-LLR-0-1141 [4] 1995 Supp (3) SUPREME COURT CASES 653 [5] 1995 Supp (3) SUPREME COURT CASES 654