Case: B. Narayana Murthy &amp; Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Others

2. Writ petition No. 217 of 1970 has been presented in this Court by 387 teachers under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for a Writ in the nature of mandamus or order or direction restraining the respondents from giving effect to, (i) the orders, G. O. Ms. No. 2219 dated November 3, 1967, read with Government of Andhra Pradesh Memo No. 6573 dated November 8, 1968 and G. O. Ms. No. 1321, dated June 17, 1969, (ii) the substituted Rule 14 of the Rules made under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, and (iii) the substituted Rule 16 of the Rules made under the Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act. A declaration is also claimed to the effect that order No. G. O. Ms. No. 2219 dated November, 1, 1967 read with Government Memo No. 6573 dated November 8, 1968 and G. O. Ms. No. 1321 dated 17, 1969, Note 2 of the Fundamental Rule 56 (a) and the Rules made under the Andhra Municipalities Act and Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act are illegal and unconstitutional and for a further declaration that the rules laid down in G. O. Ms. No. 3099 dated November 30, 1964 and No. 1596 dated June 28, 1966 are applicable to the petitioners subject to the conditions stipulated in those orders3. These petitioners claim to be working as permanent teachers in the service of Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis and Municipalities for the last 25 or 30 years. According to their averments, the retirement age for the teacher in the service of the Andhra Prasesh Government, Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis and the Municipalities is fixed at 55 years. Under F. R. 56 (a) and the Subsidiary Rules of the Andhra Pradesh Government, 1962, a government servant may however be retained in service after completing 55 years with the sanction of the Government and in special circumstances he may even be retained in service after 60 years. Rule 14 of the Establishment Rules made under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959, and Rule 16 of the Rules made under the Andhra Pradesh Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1959, also fix the age of retirement at 55 years for the employees of these bodies. The Fundamental Rule providing for extension of the age of retirement with the sanction of the Government on public ground was also claimed in the petition to be applicable to the employees under the Municipalities Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis, though at the hearing no serious attempt was made to substantiate this averment, or to show how it advances their case4. On November 20, 1964, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No. 3099 raising the age of superannuation to 58 years subject to medical fitness and satisfactory work and conduct in respect of the Head-Masters and teaching staff in Government service and also in the institutions under the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis and Municipalities. On June 28, 1966, the Education Department of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No. 1596 raising the age of retirement to 60 years subject to certain conditions. On August 26, 1966, a clarification was issued whereby extension of service upto 60 years was stated to be subject to only two conditions, namely, medical fitness and satisfactory work and conduct. On November 3, 1967 the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No. 2219 canceling with effect from November 30, 1967, the earlier Government orders extending the age of retirement of teachers, first from 55 to 58 and then from 58 to 60 years. This order also contained a direction for making suitable rules under the Panchayat Samitis and Municipalities Act separately, by the Panchayat Raj and Health, Housing and Municipal Administration Departments so as to give effect to the Governments decision. It was however provided in this order that the teachers affected thereby would be continued in service till the end of the academic year 1967-68 in order to ensure continuity in the academic teaching. On November 16, 1967, new Rule 16 was substitute for the old superannuation of officers and servants of Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads was reduced to 55 years. On November 20, 1967, new Rule 14 was substituted for the old Rule 14, similarly reducing the retirement age to 55 years, in respect of the employees of the establishments under the Municipalities. On March 14, 1968. Fundamental R. 55 (a) was amended by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution by adding to it Note 2, according to which a government servant retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement could be retired at any time without notice and without assigning any reason5. It appears that some teachers, other than the present petitioners, feeling aggrieved by these orders approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court for relief under Article 226 at the Constitution. On April 16, 1968, Chinnappa Reddy, J., allowed those writ petitions and direct the Andhra Pradesh Government not to give effect to G. O. Ms. No. 2219 dated November 3,1967, and the amendment to the Fundamental Rule and the Rules under the Municipalities Act, Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads Act, insofar as they affected the rights at the petitioners in those petitions. Another batch of teachers employed by the Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis and the Municipalities, other than the present petitioners, along with a few teachers employed by private establishments also applied to that High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with similar grievance. Those writ petitions were disposed of by the same learned Judge on August 7, 1968. The State in those cases tried, without success, to get over the earlier judgment in the case of the teachers by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in B. S. Vadera v. Union of India, W. P. No. 96 of 1967 decided on 27-3-1968 since reported as (1968) 3 SCR 575   = (AIR 1969 SC 118  ) which upheld the validity of retrospective operation of Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution6. On Appeal from the earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on April 14, 1969, agreed with the single bench in holding that the cancellation of the extension of the service of the writ petitioners by the impugned order was inoperative. In the meantime, in pursuance of the judgment of the learned Single Judge the Government had on November 8, 1968, issued a Government Memo, providing as under :"1. Teachers employed by Municipalities, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis(a) Teachers whose services have been extended up to the age of 60 years by specific individual orders should be retained in service until they attain that age(b) Teachers who attained the age of 55 years before 30-11-1967 and in whose favour there are specific individual orders extending their services upto 58 years should be retained in service until they attain the age of 58 years, and therefore their cases for further extension up to the age of 60 years should be considered by the competent authorities in accordance with the G. O. Ms. 3099 Edn. dated 20-11-1964 and G. O. Ms. No. 1596 Edn. dated 28-6-1966(c) The cases of teachers who attained the age of 55 years before 30-11-1967 but in whose favour there are no specific individual orders of extension of service should be considered by the competent authorities in accordance with G. O. Ms. No. 3099 Edn. dated 20-11-1964 and G. O. Ms. No. 1596 Edn. dated 28-6-1966(d) Teachers who attained the age of 55 years after 30-11-1967 should be dealt with under G. O. Ms. No. 2219, Education dated 3-11-1967 and they should be retired on attaining the age of 55 years. Any such person continued in service after attaining 55 years as a result of the High Courts stay order should be considered as on extension and their extension terminated immediately."7. On March 17, 1969, the Government issued a Memorandum (No. 5929/HI/68) directing all the Block Development Officers, Secretaries of Zilla Parishads and Secretaries of Municipal Councils not to oust the teachers who had attained 55 years of age before November 30, 1967, merely because there were no extension orders in their favour. This Memorandum also desired that proposals for extension of service of teachers be promptly forwarded to the District Educational Officers concerned without delay8. On June, 17, 1969, Rule 16 (2) of the Rules relating to the establishments under the Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishads was amended so as to being it in conformity with the decision arrived at pursuant to the judgment of the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
16. The submission, that when the Government itself accepted the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court striking down the Government order reducing the retirement age to 55 years, then the earlier orders increasing the age of compulsory retirement must automatically be held to be revived, is unacceptable. The Government, it is noteworthy made the impugned orders after the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court with the object of giving the benefit of that decision to all the employees whose cases were covered by the principle laid down by the High Court. The case of the present petitioners is quite different and is not covered by the rule laid down by the High Court17. The impugned Government orders fixing November 30, 1967, as the date for founding the classification of teachers who should retire at the age of 55 years and those who should get the benefit of the interim orders extending the age of retirement to 58 or to 60 years cannot be considered to be either irrational, or unreasonable or having no nexus with the object to be achieved by reducing the age of retirement. The problem of unemployment in our country is undoubtedly a complex problem and opinions may differ how best to solve it. But that would not raise any question of fundamental right with which alone we are concerned in the present proceedings. The position as stated in the counter-affidavit in the case before us, however, furnishes a complete answer to the petitioners contention. The classification made by the Government does not suffer from any infirmity as it is founded on rational nexus with the object to be achievedThis submission appears to us to be inconsistent with the petitioners case as pleaded in the writ petitions. In the writ petitions it has been assumed that according to the F. R. 56 (a) the teachers have ordinarily to retire at the age of 55 years. In any event, whether or not the amended F. R. 56 (a) fixed the retirement age of non-ministerial government servants at 60 years, and whether or not the petitioners are covered by this rule, seems to be immaterial because it has not been shown that the teachers employed by the Municipalities, Zila Parishads and Panchayat Samitis are governed directly by this Fundamental Rule.The submission that the rule applicable to the teachers employed by such bodies was intended to be in conformity with the Fundamental Rule is of little avail to the petitioners because those Rules could not be considered to have been automatically modified as a result of the amendment in F. R. 56 (a) in 1965. It is not disputed that there is no such modification in the Rules which directly govern such teachers. The argument based on the amended F. R. 56 (a) is therefore, of no assistance to the petitioners.