IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 2327 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/03/2005 in WP NO : 22340 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: P. Dharma Raju S/o., Kondaiah (Late) R/o. 38-13-46, Laxminagar, National High Way 5, Marripalem Post, Visakhapatnam -18 ..... APPELLANT AND Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Being Rep. by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam-35 .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.J.CH.Y.NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.RAGHURAM The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WA {VSMI} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 2379 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/03/2005 in WP NO : 430 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M. Suryanarayana S/o Late M. Simhachalam, r/o H. No. 37-4-29, Industrial Estate, Suryanagar-2, Visakhapatnam-7 ..... APPELLANT AND Visakhapatnam Poort Trust being rep by Chairman, Visakhapatnam-35 .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.J.CH.Y.NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WA {TRT} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 506 of 2006 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 01/03/2005 in WP NO : 22249 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Visakhapatnam Port Trust, being rep. by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam-35. ..... APPELLANT AND Gavara Demudu, S/o. Late G. Yerri Naidu, 5-30, Peda Narava, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam-27. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.J.CH.Y.NARASIMHAM The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WA {JGK} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.2327, 2379 of 2005 & 506 of 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Writ Appeal Nos.2327 and 2379 of 2005 are ﬁled by the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.22340 of 2004 and 430 of 2005, respectively, whereas Writ Appeal No.506 of 2006 is ﬁled by the respondent-Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, in W.P.No.22249 of 2004, against the common order, dated 01-03-2005, passed by the learned Single Judge in all these three writ petitions. 2. All these writ appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.22340 of 2004, who claimed to be appointed as a casual labour in respondent-Port Trust on 01-01-1969 through due process of recruitment, and after completion of 6 ½ years of casual service, his services were regularized as Kalashi Shore with eﬀect from 28-04- 1975, and presently working as Fitter Grade-II in the workman cadre, ﬁled the writ petition, questioning the letter No.E/HAE/SR & PC/2125, dated 01-10-2004, issued by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, informing that he will be retiring from service on superannuation with eﬀect from 31-12-2004 on attaining the age of 58 years. 4. The petitioner in W.P.No.430 of 2005 who claimed to be appointed on 07-10-1968 through due process of recruitment and his services were regularized as Gangman with eﬀect from 28-06-1979, in the workman cadre, ﬁled the writ petition questioning the letter No.E/SR/2598/338, dated 15-12-2004, issued by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, informing that he will be retiring from service on superannuation with eﬀect from 28-02-2005, on attaining the age of 58 years. 5. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.22249 of 2004, who claimed to be appointed as a casual labour on 18-02-1970 in the Engineering Department, after following the due procedure vide appointment order dated 13-02-1970 and after completion of 7 ½ years of service, his services were regularized as casual labour with eﬀect from 01-09-1977 and working as Mason Grade- II, ﬁled the writ petition questioning the letter No.E/HAE/SR&PC/230, dated 01-10-2004, issued by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, informing him that he will be retiring on superannuation with effect from 31-12-2004 on attaining the age of 58 years. 6. In W.P.No.22249 of 2004, the defendant-Port Trust, ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit admitting the appointment of the petitioner as Shore-Khallasi with eﬀect from 28-04-1975, and it is stated that the records are not available with them to show about his earlier appointment and that he was working as casual labour, but, however, admitted that the Fitter Grade-II comes under the category of workman and is entitled to continue in service till 60 years. 7. Similar counters are ﬁled in writ petitions W.P.Nos.22340 of 2004 and W.P.No.430 of 2005, with regard to the other petitioners, for non-availability of the records to verify the initial date of their appointment i.e. whether it is prior to 18-07-1974 or after 18-07-1974. The respondent-Port Trust has not disputed the service conditions of the petitioners, which are governed by the Visakhapatnam Port Employees (Retirement) Regulations, 1989 (for short ‘the Regulations’), with regard to the age of retirement. The rules and regulations which govern the retirement of workman are framed as follows: “(1) except and otherwise provided in these Regulations, every employee who joined Board’s service on or after, 18-07-1974 shall retire on superannuation on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. (2) All employees in Class-I, II and Class-III posts, other than workmen, appointed prior to 18-07-1974 shall also retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which they attain the age of Fifty Eight Years. (3) A ‘workman’ and an employee in Class-IV post, who joined Board’s service prior to 18-07-1974, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of month in which he attains the age of sixty years.” 8. It is not in dispute that all the three writ petitioners come under the category of workmen and employees of Class-IV. The only dispute is with regard to the date of appointment as to whether it is prior to 18-07- 1974 or after 18-07-1974. 9. The petitioner in W.P.No.22249 of 2004 has produced an appointment order, whose name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, and he was appointed as a casual mazdoor on 18-02-1970 and since the said aspect was taken into consideration, the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 10. The only ground on which the other writ petitions are dismissed is that the petitioners failed to produce any acceptable evidence to substantiate that they were appointed prior to 18-07-1974. 11. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.22340 of 2004 and 430 of 2005 have ﬁled the review petitions in W.PM.P.No.8732 and 8804 of 2005, respectively, before the learned Single Judge. The seniority list of casual mazdoors for the year 1977 is enclosed with W.P.M.P.No.8732 of 2005, wherein the petitioner is shown at serial No.16 with the date of appointment as 24-12-1968. Similarly, the seniority list of C1. Gangaman of 1977 is enclosed with W.P.M.P.No.8804 of 2005, wherein the petitioner is shown at serial No.95 with the date of appointment as 04-11-1968. The learned single Judge, however, dismissed both the review petitions on 12-07-2005, holding review petitions cannot be entertained on the ground that some papers were traced after disposal of the writ petitions. The writ petitions were dismissed based on the material available on record, as on the date of disposal of the said writ petitions and the same do not warrant any review on the fresh material produced by the petitioners, which was filed along with the present writ appeals. 12. Pending the writ appeals the Joint Secretary to Government of India, addressed a letter dated 28-09- 2007, to the Chairman, All Major Port Trust and Dock Labour Boards, informing that except as otherwise provided speciﬁcally, every employee in the major Port Trusts and Dock Labour Boards, whose age of retirement is currently 58 years, shall now retire from the service of the Port on the afternoon of the last date of the month in which he/she attains the age of 60 years. However, in case of employees whose date of birth is the 1st of the month, they shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month, on attaining the age of 60 years. 13. Under Regulation (3) of the Regulations, 1989, referred to above, every employee who is appointed prior to 18-07-1974, shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of month, in which he attains the age of sixty years. The seniority lists, produced by the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.22340 and 430 of 2005, ﬁled along with Writ Appeals, have not been disputed by the respondent-Port Trust. In view of the same, they are entitled to continue in service up to the age of superannuation at 60 years and hence, they cannot be retired till the completion of age of 60 years. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals Nos.2327 and 2379 of 2005 are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years with all consequential beneﬁts like increments, promotions and salaries etc. and for counting the period for ﬁxation of the pension. The respondent-Port Trust is directed to verify the seniority list now produced by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in that regard. The seniority lists shall be produced by the appellants within four weeks from today and after veriﬁcation of the seniority lists, necessary orders shall be passed by the respondent-Port Trust for the reliefs, for which, the petitioners are entitled, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this common judgment. 15. So far as Writ Appeal No.506 of 2006 is concerned, the appellant-Visakhapatnam Port Trust has not contested regarding the order of appointment issued through their letter sponsoring the name of the petitioner who was appointed as casual mazdoor on 18- 02-1970 and the same is not disputed. Further, as per the seniority list for the year 1977, produced by the respondent-writ petitioner, for the category of C.E. (P) casual mazdoor, the petitioner was appointed on 18-02- 1970 and his seniority is shown at serial No.18. In view of the same, we do not ﬁnd any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal No.506 of 2006 is dismissed. 16. In the result, the Writ Appeals Nos.2327 and 2379 of 2005 are allowed and the Writ Appeal No.506 of 2006 is dismissed with the directions as indicated above. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY _____________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR September 16, 2008 Kvr