Case: P. Radhakrishna Naidu and Others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

The order dated 23 September 1975 in the case of the first petitioner in writ petition No. 97 of 1976 may be referred to as typical of orders in the case of other petitioners. This order stated first that the said first petitioner completed 25 years of qualifying service on 24th July, 1975. The order next stated that the Commissioner of Police being the authority to make a substantive appointment to the post of Inspector of Police is of opinion that it is in public interest to retire the persons mentioned in theorder thereafter states that in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) ofle 2(A) read with Clause (a) of(2) of rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules,(1) of rule 2/rule 3 read with(1) of rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Government Servants Premature Retirement Rules, 1975, the Commissioner of Police directs that the person mentioned in the order shall retire in public interest from service with effect from the date of service of the order and that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount pay and allowances for 3 months in lieu of notice calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing immediately before the date on which the order is served onGovernment of Andhra Pradesh passed a general order dated 28 November, 1975. In that Government order it is stated that in several Government orders recited therein, orders for the premature retirement of the Government servants in public interest had been issued in those cases after giving 3 months previous notice in writing or after giving 3 months salary in lieu of such notice. The 28 November, 1975 order next state s that an instance came to the notice of the Government that a Government servant after compulsory retirement as per orders mentioned above wasin a cooperative institution as executive officer. Though the reappointment of the incumbent was in theent was stated to be irregular and contrary to the intention of the Government in retiring corrupt and inefficient persons. The Government order directed that all the Departments of the Secretariat, all Heads of Department, and all Collectors etc., should ensure that on no account persons who are retired prematurely in pursuance of orders issued by the Government should beed in anynt Institutions.The petitioners challenged the compulsory retirement orders as violation o f Article 16. The petitioners also challenged the Government order forbiddingof compulsorily retired persons innt Institutions as a stigma within the meaning of Articlethe outset it should be stated that enforcement of violation of Article 311 does not come within the scope of Article 32. The challenge to the Government order forbidt of compulsorily retired persons as a stigma within the meaning of Article 311 is, therefore, not an infringement of fundamental rights.The petitioners challenged the orders of compulsory retirement as an infraction 0f Article 16. It is not known how the petitioners have been discriminated against other persons because no such person is impleaded as a respondent and there are no allegations to that effect.

Reasoning:
In the present case the valid rule is mentioned in each case.The Government of Andhra Pradesh has by an administrative order constituted a review committee for each department to review orders of retirement in public interest and to revoke and modify the same, if necessary. The petitioners made representations to the review committee. The petitioners yet choose to come to this court. The petitioners are not justified in applying to thispetitioners obtained rules in these two cases during the vacation. A similar matter came before this Court on 29 April, 1976 and this Court did not issue any rule. If the attention of this Court had been drawn to that order, perhaps no rule would have been issued in theseAndhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order, 1975 confers power on the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction with respect to appointment, allotment or promotion and other conditions of service of such persons. It is open to a person who complains about an order of compulsory retirement to approach the Tribunal in a given case.