THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10332 OF 2006 Dt: 19th March 2008 Between: N. Appa Rao …Petitioner and The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Rep.by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam & & another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10332 OF 2006 O R D E R: The petitioner was appointed as a khallasi, in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust on 10.2.1971. On 1.3.2001, he was promoted as Electrician Grade-I. Within one month thereafter, he was promoted as Sub-station Supervisor (for short “Supervisor”) on 1.4.2001. Both the promotions were on ad hoc basis. The respondents confirmed the promotion of the petitioner, as Electrician Grade-I, vide proceedings dated 15.10.2003. Even before the service of the petitioner as Supervisor was confirmed, he attained the age of 58 years, and accordingly, he was retired from service on 31.5.2006. He challenges the communication, dated 2.2.2006, through which he was superannuated, with effect from 31.5.2006. He contends that he held the post of Electrician Grade-I, in a substantive capacity, and the age of superannuation for that post is 60 years. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, opposing the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that being fully aware of the fact that the age of superannuation for the category of workman, on the one hand, and of supervisory staff, on the other hand, is different, the petitioner not only accepted the ad hoc promotion way back on 1.4.2001, but also continued in that post, till he retired. Heard Sri P. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Sri Raghuram, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In the Port Trust, the posts up to Electrician Grade-I are in the cadre of workman. Age of superannuation for those posts is 60 years. From the post of Supervisor onwards, they are in the supervisory category, and the age of superannuation for these posts is 58 years. It is no doubt true that the promotion of petitioner as Supervisor on 1.4.2001, was not confirmed, by the time he attained the age of superannuation. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner accepted the promotion, ad hoc or otherwise, and enjoyed the benefits, including that of higher emoluments. Having realized that he is going to retire at the age of 58 years, the petitioner did make any effort, to seek reversion to the post of Electrician Grade-I. That, however, was too late, and the respondents did not accede to the request. Though the order dated 5.4.2006, through which the respondents refused to revert the petitioner, was challenged, this court is unable to find the ground to interfere with the same. The order no doubt is cryptic and without any reasons, but in the context of there not being any statutory obligation, on the part of the respondents, to accede to the request of the petitioner, it cannot be said that there is any illegality or infirmity. Another ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Central Government had enhanced the age of superannuation, for Supervisory category also, to 60 years, and the same benefit be extended to the petitioner. A perusal of the order, dated 28.9.2007, passed by the Central Government, discloses that the age of superannuation for the category of employees, was stipulated as 60 years, but the decision was brought into effect from 30.9.2007. Much before that date, the petitioner retired from service. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 19th March 2008 PAN