IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21478 OF 2011 Date:29.07. 2011 Between:- G.Appala Naidu and others .. Petitioners And The Commissioner and Director of Sugar and Cane, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the Retirement Notice Rc.No.106/Vya.V/2011-2012, dated 24.06.2011, and informing the petitioners to retire from their services as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct respondent No.2 to continue the petitioners in their respective posts till their attaining the age of 60 years on par with the persons, who have been continuing even after attaining the age of superannuation. 2. The petitioners are working in respondent No.2 sugar factory in various posts and come under workmen. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.396, dated 03.09.1990, that the workmen working in the Cooperative Sugar Factories are entitled to continue in service upto 60 years of age. All the petitioners are attaining the age of 58 years by 31.07.2011 and so, respondent No.2 issued a common retirement notice, dated 24.06.2011, to all the petitioners and informed that they should retire by 31.07.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. But respondent No.2 has been continuing the services of some persons though they have attained the age of superannuation in the years 2004, 2005 and 2008. So, the petitioners made representations, dated 11.07.2011 and 27.07.2011, to respondent No.2 to continue them in their respective posts on par with the employees, who have been continuing in services after attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. But no action has been taken by respondent No.2. Rule 28(5) of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) contemplates that every paid servant or officer of the society other than those in the last grade service shall retire from service on or afternoon of the last date of the month on the date he attains the age of 58 years and this rule position was upheld by this Court. However, respondent No.2 agreed to continue them in their service till attaining the age of 60 years, but turned down. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this Court held that except Class IV employees, all other employees of the A.P. Cooperative Societies shall retire on attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years, but some Mechanics, Clerks, Foreman Mechanic etc, who attained superannuation in the years 2004, 2005 and 2008 were allowed to continue in the said posts. The case of the petitioner is on par with the persons, who are continuing in the posts even after superannuation and hence, he prays to direct respondent No.2 to continue the petitioners till they attain the age of 60 years. 4. Even according to the petitioners, Rule 28(5) of the Act contemplates that every paid servant or officer of the society other than those in the last grade service shall retire from service on or afternoon of the last date of the month on which he attains the age of 58 years. Therefore, the petitioners, who are not in last grade service, are bound to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. But the grievance of the petitioners is that some of the employees are continuing in the service even after superannuation and their cases are similarly situated with that of those persons. So, from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no violation of statutory rule or infringement of a statutory legal right. Admittedly, the petitioners are bound to retire on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. So, respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice directing the petitioners to retire from service on 31.07.2011. Therefore, the impugned notice is completely in accordance with the rules with regard to the superannuation. Simply because respondent No.2 has been continuing some other persons, that cannot be a ground for extending the service of the petitioners beyond 58 years. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 29th July, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.21478 OF 2011 Date:29.07.2011 AMD