← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaPIL/61/2015dismissed no costs

Kunche Srinivasa Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

2015-03-234 pages

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.61 OF 2015 DATED:23.3.2015 Between:

Kunche Srinivasa Rao ... Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Higher Education (UE) Department A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and another ... Respondents

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.61 OF 2015 ORDER: (per the Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 24.12.2014 issued by the Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. By this order, retirement age of University Teachers has been enhanced from 60 to 62 years with effect from 2.6.2014.

No one can question the policy of the Government in prescribing minimum and maximum age for University Teachers service. The Government has taken the decision in its own wisdom as a matter of policy. It appears from the impugned order that the decision has not been taken abruptly. A committee was constituted to consider the demand to increase the age of retirement of the Teachers. Considering the Committee's recommendations, the decision has been taken. We do not think that the decision is patently irrational or absurd, rather if we look into this matter deeply it would appear a sound logic in taking such decision. Retirement of any employee of the Government has got a tremendous financial implication. By enhancement of retirement age, the government for temporary period can save a lot of money which will have to be spent on account of retirement on one hand and in recruiting in the resultant vacancy on the other hand. We do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

________________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 25.3.2015 bnr