IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Appeal No. 775 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 18/07/2008 in Writ Petition No. 15478 of 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) Kemidi Govinda Rajulu, S/o. Late K. Atchanna Naidu, BHPV, R/o. D-17, BHPV Township, BHPV Post, Visakhapatnam – 12 2) Mudiki Suryanarayana, S/o. Late Appanna, BHPV, R/o. 133, Siddarthanagar, Vadlapudu Post, Visakhapatnam - 46. 3) Vurukuti Appa Rao, S/o. Late Appanna, BHPV, R/o. 7-15-19, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam - 26. 4) Gangireddi Sanyasi Rao, S/o. Late Nooka Raju, BHPV, R/o. 59-17, Malkapuram Main Road, Visakhapatnam - 11. 5) Vanam Syamalabai, W/o. Late Simhachalam, (Time Office) BHPV, R/o. MIG B-31, Sheelanagar, BHPV Post, Visakhapatnam - 12. ... PETITIONERS AND 1) The Government of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of HI & PE, Room No. 178, Udyog Bhavan, Department of Heavy Industries, Government of India, New Delhi - 110 011. 2) The Chairman & Managing Director, M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, BHEL House, Siri Fort, New Delhi - 110 049. 3) M/s. Bharat Heavy Plate & Vessels Limited, Rep by its Managing Director, BHPV Post, Visakhapatnam - 530 012 ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SMT. K. SESHARAJYAM Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR. A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR. S.V. BHATT, Counsel for Respondent No.3: MS. P. NAGESWARA SREE The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15478 of 2008, the original petitioners have filed this appeal. 2. The appellants are employees of respondent No.3 company. According to the Standing Order of respondent No.3, age of retirement for its employees is 58 years. 3. Case of the appellants was that for sometime, respondent No.3 is being managed by respondent No.2 company and as age of retirement of employees of respondent No.2 company was 60 years, age of superannuation of the present appellants should also be 60 years. The learned Single Judge did not find favour with the said submission and, therefore, the petition was rejected. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that respondent No.2 company is a parent company, which is having supervision over respondent No.3 company and its staff. Both are government companies. In the circumstances, age of retirement for employees of both the companies should be the same. She, therefore, submitted that the petition should not have been rejected. 5. We too are not in agreement with the submission of the learned advocate for the appellants for the reason that both the companies viz., respondent Nos.3 and 2 are different companies having different legal entities. It is not the case of the appellants that both the companies have merged. It is an admitted fact that both companies are absolutely separate legal entities and, therefore, it is possible for both the companies to have different service conditions for their employees. 6. For the afore-stated reasons, the learned Single Judge did not believe the submission made by the appellants – petitioners and we are also in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that the age of superannuation for the appellants cannot be 60 years. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ July 30, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {VSMI}