THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 1398 of 2001 O R D E R: None appears on either side. This Writ Petition has been instituted by Andhra Pradesh Federation of University Teachers Association, calling in question the validity and legality of the orders passed by the State Government, in their G.O.Ms.No.208, Higher Education (UE.II.1) Department, dated 29th June 1999, insofar as it relates to the age of superannuation in respect of teachers working in various universities in the State. The State Government, upon receipt of the recommendations made by the University Grants Commission (UGC), has constituted a five-member Committee under the Chairmanship of Sri P.V.R.K. Prasad and after examining the recommendations made by the said Committee, the State Government has decided to extend the revised UGC scales of pay to the Teachers, Librarians and Physical Education Personnel in the universities and colleges in the State in terms of the Schedule annexed to the said order. Paragraph 15 of the Appendix to the said G.O. dealt with the issues relating to superannuation and re-employment of teachers. It was noticed therein that the UGC has recommended the age of superannuation as 62 years uniformly for all the teachers in the universities and colleges. It was also noticed that in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the age of superannuation is 58 years insofar as teachers in the colleges are concerned and 60 years for the teachers working in various universities. After taking note of all the relevant aspects, the Government has decided that there should not be any change in the age of superannuation which is existing as of now and hence, retained the age of superannuation as 58 years for the college teachers and 60 years for the university teachers. However, it was left open to a university or a college to re-employ a superannuated teacher, in accordance with the guidelines framed by the UGC in that regard up to the age of 65 years. This issue is what has been challenged in this Writ Petition. It is appropriate, at this stage, to notice that the same question has fallen for consideration before the Supreme Court in B. Bharat Kumar & others v. Osmania University & others[1] and the Supreme Court has concluded the said issue, in paragraph 19, in the following words: “ Learned counsel also argued, to a great extent, the desirability of the age of superannuation being raised to 60 or 62 as the case may be. We again reiterate that it is not for this Court to formulate a policy as to what the age of retirement should be as by doing so we would be trailing into the dangerous area of the wisdom of the Legislation. If the State Government in its discretion, which is permissible to it under the scheme, decides to restrict the age and not increase it to 60 or as the case may be 62, it was perfectly justified into doing so.” Therefore, the question that has been agitated in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court referred to supra and hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed, but however, without costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 12th November 2009 ksld [1] 2007 (3) Supreme 1055