IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5591 of 2007 Between: V. Appala Narasimham S/o Late Sri Ramachandra Rao R/o Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Registrar (Vigilance), Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, (LA & JSCF) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....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 call for the records relating to G.O.Ms. No. 14, dated 27-02-2007 and issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and declaring that the orders passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings Roc. No. 1520/2007-B-Spl. dated 27-02-2007, confirming the order passed in G.O.Ms. No. 14, dated 27-02-2007 as illegal unjust contrary to law, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India by granting consequential relief of reinstatement into service with all attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: G.VIDYASAGAR (SC FOR APHC) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: G.P. for Law & Legislative affairs The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5591 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Earlier, we heard the writ petition and reserved it for judgment. Subsequent to this, the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in K. VEERA CHARY vs. HON’BLE HIGH COURT & OTHERS ([1]) was delivered. In view of the mention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in this writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in K. Veera Chary’s case cited supra, we have posted this matter for ‘for being mentioned’ and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Law and Legislative Affairs and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, the following order is passed. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.2.2007 in G.O. Ms. No.14, Law (LA&J SC.F) Department, whereby the petitioner while serving as a Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Hyderabad is compulsorily retired on the afternoon of 28.2.2007, in terms of the second proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as amended by Act 42 of 2006. This order of the 2nd respondent-Government was issued basing on the report of the 1st respondent-High Court that the Officer is not found to be of continued utility to perform his duties. The High Court, in the order in Roc. No. 1520/2007-B.SPL, dated 17.2.2007 had recorded that having considered the service record, the disposal of cases, quality of judgments and orders of the Officer and the entries recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports together with action taken thereon, and on an overall review and assessment of the entire relevant material relating to the Officer, was satisfied that he was not fit to be continued in service and to be of continued utility to perform his duties. It is the demonstrable factual scenario that the petitioner was compulsorily retired by the order impugned on crossing the age of 55 years and before attaining the age of 57 years in terms of the second proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984. Though the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement on several grounds, it requires to be noticed that the full Bench of this Court in K. Veera Chary’s case cited supra, inter alia, has declared that the second proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as amended by Act 42 of 2006, is ultra vires Articles 14 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Consequent on the declaration by the Full Bench of this Court of the second proviso to Section 3(1A) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as invalid, the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is without basis. On this analysis, the writ petition is allowed and the Order in G.O. Ms. No.14, dated 27.2.2007 and the consequent order of the 1st respondent in Proceedings in Roc. No. 1520/2007-B SPL, dated 27.2.2007 are declared invalid and inoperative. It is directed that the petitioner, Sri V. Appala Narasimham, District and Sessions Judge in the A.P. Higher Judicial Service shall be forthwith reinstated to duty with all consequential benefits, including the pay and allowances for the period during which he was out of service till the date of reinstatement. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 28th November, 2008 ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Pnb [1] 2008(5) ALT 115