IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9761 of 2008 Between: D. Sujatha W/o. Prabhakar Rao A.P. Khadi Village Industries Board Humayunnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board Humayunnagar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer. 2 The A.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board Humayunnagar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its General Manager. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the proceedings No. KnC/Estt/2004- 05 dt. 3-12-2004 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential proceedings No. KnC/2004-05 dt. 31-12-2004 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary illegal, unconstitutional violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires to sec. 47 of the A.P. Shops & Establishment Act 1988 and also ultra vires to Draft regulation governing the recruitment and conditions of service of staff of Khadi-n-Crafts and set aside the same and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as in service till attaining the age of 60 years i.e up to 31-12-2006 and pay all arrears of salary and other consequential benefits arise out of continuing the petitioner in service up to 60 years of age i.e, 31-12- 2006 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Sales Woman in the A.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board, Humayunnagar, Hyderabad, the first respondent herein. Through proceedings, dated 03.12.2004, issued by the first respondent, and consequential proceedings, dated 31.12.2004, issued by the second respondent, she was retired from service, on attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner contends that she was entitled to continue up to 60 years in service, as per Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) and the action of the respondents is contrary to the same. She prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in retiring her from service at the age of 58 years, as illegal and arbitrary, and for a consequential declaration, holding that she was entitled to continue up to 31.12.2006; and for a further direction to the respondents to extend consequential benefits, on that basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the nature of duties discharged by the petitioner, she was entitled to be extended the benefit of Section 47 of the Act and the respondents were not justified in retiring the petitioner before she attained the age of 60 years. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner approached this Court, not only after her retirement from service, but also subsequent to the age of 60 years. It is also pleaded that Section 47 of the Act, by itself, does not stipulate any age of retirement and it is meant only for calculation of terminal benefits. The petitioner stood retired from service with effect from 31.12.2004. Placing reliance upon Section 47 of the Act, she had approached this Court for a declaration that she was entitled to remain in service till the age of 60 years. Firstly, Section 47 of the Act by itself does not stipulate any age of superannuation of employees of any category. It deals with the manner in which certain benefits must be extended to the employees on cessation of their service. Secondly, the writ petition cannot be entertained, on account of the fact that it is filed after the petitioner completed 60 years. It is not explained as to why the petitioner did not approach this Court, immediately after her retirement from service. Viewed from any angle, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the retirement benefits have not been extended to the petitioner so far. If that be so, it shall be open to the petitioner to make a representation to the same and the respondents shall consider the same, in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.01.05.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}