THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.23590 OF 2008 Dated: 25.11.2009 Between : G. Komaraiah … Petitioner And 1. Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Employment Generation & Youth Services (YSS) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.23590 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein is working in the Sports Authority of A.P. as a Grade-I Coach. By proceedings dated 21.01.2008 the 3rd respondent – Administrative Officer, Sports Authority of A.P. - informed the petitioner that his retirement is due on 31.10.2008 on attaining superannuation of 58 years. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that he is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. This Court while issuing Rule Nisi, by order dated 30.10.2008 in WPMP.No.30752 of 2008 while suspending the impugned order dated 21.01.2008 directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service upto the age of 60 years. Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the services of the establishment of the A.P. Sports Council on 8.10.1971 by which date his services were governed by the A.P. Sports Council Establishment Service Rules, 1969 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1969’). It is also not in dispute that as per Rule 20 of the said Rules he shall retire at the age of 60. Subsequently, after the enactment of A.P. Sports Authorities Act, 1988, a new set of Rules called the A.P. Sports Authority Rules, 1993 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1993’) have been made under G.O.Ms.No.25, Employment Generation and Youth Services (YSS) Department, dated 4.5.1993. Even as per Rule 25 of the said Rules, 1993, an employee who entered the establishment prior to 1.11.1987 shall retire from the services of the SAAP on attaining the age of 60 years. Since the petitioner entered the service on 8.10.1971 i.e., prior to the cut-off date of 1.11.1987 prescribed in Rule 25 (1) (a) of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 4.5.1993, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years and that the impugned order dated 21.01.2008 compelling him to retire on completion of 58 years is arbitrary and illegal. However, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is stated that Rule 25 (1) (a) has been substituted on 13.12.2003 and as per the amended Rule 25 (1) (a) all the employees shall retire from the services of SAAP on attaining the age of 58 years. Rule 25 (1) (a) of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 4.5.1993 (prior to amendment) runs as under : 25. RETIREMENT: (1) An employee shall retire from the Service of SAAP; (a) On the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he/she attains the age of 60 years (sixty years) in the case of pre. 1.11.1987 entrants of office establishment and 58 (fifty eight) years of age in the case of post 1.11.1987 entrants. Provided that in the case of Coachers continuance beyond 55 years of age shall be on the basis of year to year review upto 58 years by the appointing authority and on his/her being declared physically fit by the Medical Authority as specified by the SAAP: Provided further that an employee in last grade service post shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years: Provided also that in the case of person appointed on “Contract or on Honorarium basis as Adviser these provisions about retirement age will not apply.” (b) on his/her being declared medically unfit for service by a Medical board to the designated by the Appointing Authority in this behalf. (2) …. …. …. …. …. …. (3) …. …. …. …. …. …. (4) …. …. …. …. …. …. (5) …. …. …. …. …. …. However, Rule 25 (1) (a) has been substituted by virtue of the amendment to the Rules under G.O.Ms.No.171, Youth Advancement Tourism and Culture (Sports), dated 12.12.2003 published in the A.P. Gazette Part-I Extraordinary, dated 13.12.2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 23 (1) of the A.P. Sports Authorities Act, 1988. The amended Rule which has come into force w.e.f. 17.04.2000 may also be extracted hereunder : In the said Rules, in Sub-rule (1) of rule 25 for clause (a), the following shall be substituted, namely:- (a) on the after-noon of the last day of the month in which he or she attains the age of 58 (fifty-eight) years. Provided that in the case of Coaches, continuance beyond 55 years of age shall be on the basis of year to year review upto 58 years by the appointing authority and if declared physically fit by the Medical Authority as prescribed by the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. Provided further that an employee in last grade service post shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he/she attains the age of 60 years: Provided also that in the case of person appointed on “contract or on honorarium basis as Advisor, the age of retirement shall not apply”. In the light of the amended Rule 25 (1) (a), according to which all employees shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years, I am unable to hold that the impugned order dated 21.01.2008 under which the petitioner was informed that he shall retire from service on 31.10.2008 on attaining superannuation age of 58 years suffers from any illegality. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the amendment under G.O.Ms.No.171, dated 12.12.2003 is not in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 23 (2) of the A.P. Sports Authorities Act, 1988, the same is not valid and cannot be enforced. In the absence of a specific plea or any material to substantiate the petitioner’s allegation, I am not inclined to express any opinion on the said contention. As a matter of fact, the petitioner never challenged the validity of the Rule 25 (1) (a) as amended by G.O.Ms.No.171, dated 12.12.2003. Hence, the said contention warrants no consideration. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and no Mandamus can be issued to the respondents to act contrary to law by continuing the petitioner till he attains the age of 60 years. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed and the interim order dated 30.10.2008 shall stand vacated. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 25.11.2009 gbs