(Prayer: Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to a), allow the Writ Appeal, by setting aside the common Order dt.18.011.2025 in W.P.No.22.056/2024 and Batch passed by the Learned Single Judge to the extent of applying it to the W.P. No.7752 of 2024 b) and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the order in WP.No.7752 of 2024 & its Batch, dt.18-11-2025 and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct the respondent 3 and 4 to continue the petitioner in service till he attained age of 62 years by suspending the order dt.18.11.2025 to the extent of petitioner in W.P.No.7752/2024 and to pass

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to a) , allow the Writ Appeal, by setting aside the common Order dt. 18-11-2025 in W.P.No.22056 of 2025 and Batch passed by the Learned Single Judge to the extent of applying to the W.P.No.21706 of 2025, b) . and to pas

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the order in WP.No.21706 of 2025 & its Batch, dt. 18-11 2025 and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to continue the petitioner in service till the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 62 years by suspending the order, dt.18-11-2025 to the extent of petitioner in WP.No.21706 of 2025 and to pass)

Common Judgment:

Battu Devanand, J.

1. These two writ appeals filed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 18.11.2025 in W.P.Nos.7752 of 2024 and 21706 of 2025.

2. The parties in the Appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petitions for convenience.

3. Heard Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for respondents in both the writ appeals and carefully perused the material available on record.

4. The petitioner in W.P.No.7752 of 2024 worked as Foreman in A.P. Cooperation Oil Growers Federation Limited. He filed the writ petition aggrieved by the action of the A.P. Cooperation Oil Growers Federation Limited in withdrawing the resolution passed on 01.02.2022 reducing the age of Superannuation from 62 to 60 years as per the Board Meeting Circulation, dated 25.01.2024 and for not continuing him up to 62 years as per the Board Resolution, dated 01.02.2022.

5. The petitioner in W.P.No.1248 of 2025 worked as Secretary (I/C/RM) (Retd.) in the Head Office of A.P. State Where Housing Corporation, Vijayawada. He filed the writ petition aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 17.12.2024 informing him that he should retire from the service by 30.06.2025 on attaining the age of Superannuation without considering the minutes of 208th Board Meeting, dated 14.03.2022 and against the action in withdrawing the resolution of adoption of G.O.Ms.No.15 vide the minutes of 216th meeting held on 29.12.2023 by the A.P. State Where Housing Corporation.

6. These two writ petitions were heard by the learned single Judge of this Court along with the batch of writ petitions filed seeking the similar relief and was pleased to dismiss all the writ petitions by a common order, dated 18.11.2025 holding that as there is no amendment to the service rules and as there is no concurrence of the State Government for enhanced age of Superannuation and considering the fact that the age of Superannuation is a condition of service and as per the rules any amendment requires concurrence of the State Government. It was held that no relief can be granted to the petitioners anticipating the decision of the committee constituted pursuant to G.O.Rt.No.1545, General Administration (Cabinet.I) Department, dated 22.08.2025. Aggrieved by the common order, dated 18.11.2025, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.1247 of 2024 and 1248 of 2025 preferred the present appeals.

7. It is the case of the petitioners that the Boards of the Corporations wherein they are working passed resolutions on different dates i.e., on 22.03.2022 and 01.02.2022 wherein the age of Superannuation was enhanced from 60 to 62 years and subsequently the said Board Resolutions has been withdrawn again confirming the retirement age at 60 years. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking for enhancing the age of Superannuation of 62 years in terms of G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022.

8. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the State Government employees.

                  The conditions of service of the petitioners are governed by their respective Corporation Rules and Regulations. It is also an admitted fact that the State Government has constituted a committee of Hon’ble Ministers under G.O.Rt.No.1545, General Administration (Cabinet.I) Department, dated 22.08.2025 for examining the feasibility of enhancement of age of Superannuation from 60 to 62 years to the employees working in Government Institutions/Societies/Corporations including in Schedules IX and X of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014. The Board Resolutions has to be approved by the State Government. As on the date, there is no amendment to the service rules as there is no concurrence of the State Government for enhanced age of Superannuation. Accordingly, the learned single Judge observed that the age of Superannuation is a condition of service and as per the Rules any amendment requires concurrence of the State Government. As such, it is held that constitution of a committee under G.O.Rt.No.1545, General Administration (Cabinet.I) Department, dated 22.08.2025 to examine the feasibility of enhancement of age of Superannuation cannot be a ground for seeking enhancement of Superannuation. The learned single Judge also held that the age of Superannuation is a policy decision which has ramifications of recruitment as well as financial implications on the Respondent-Corporations and unless a concrete decision is taken by the State Government as contemplated under the Rules, this Court in anticipation of a decision of the committee cannot grant any relief to the petitioners.

9. The learned single Judge by following the law laid down by the Apex Court in (1) V.M. Gadre v. M.G. Diwan and Others((1996) 3 SCC 454), (2) Dr. Prakasan M.P., and Others v. State of Kerala(2023 Supreme (SC) 891), (3) New Okhal Industrial Development Authority and another v. B.D. Singhal and Others (2021 SCC OnLine SC 466) and (4) Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das((2023) 16 SCC 462), held that no case is made out for the petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions.

10. We have carefully gone through the order passed by the learned single Judge. As rightly held by the learned single Judge without any amendment to the relevant service rules with the concurrence of the State Government for enhanced age of Superannuation, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petitions. It is settled law that the enhancement of age of Superannuation is a matter of policy. The appropriate decisions has to be taken by the competent authority by following the service rules and if necessary by making necessary amendments to the relevant service rules can enhance the age of Superannuation under considering particular circumstances. But, while exercising the judicial review, this Court cannot grant such relief as prayed for by the petitioners herein.

11. In view of the above, in our considered view, the reasoned order passed by the learned single Judge is in accordance with the settled proposition of law and as such interference of this Division Bench into the same is not warranted.

12. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.