Constitution

Facts
In the state of Andhra Pradesh, a now-defunct party known as the Telugu Desam Party came to
power in 1983. The Andhra Pradesh government has issued an order lowering the retirement age for
all government employees (excluding those in last-grade positions) from 58 to 55 years. On February
8th, 1983, less than a month after assuming power, this directive was issued. Two notifications were
added in the exercise of the power conferred by the provisions of Articles 309[1] and 313[2] of the
Constitution. As a result, both announcements revised basic rights and the Hyderabad Civil Services
Rules, respectively. The announcement mandated the retirement of all government employees over
the age of 55 who were not in the final grade of service and had no ministerial or non-ministerial
history. As a result of these efforts, about 18,000 government workers and 10,000 public sector
personnel were superannuated. The Chief Minister defended the age lowering decision by stating
that it will create more job chances for the young. As a result, some workers filed writ petitions
challenging the legality of the law under Articles 14[3], 16[4], 21[5], and 311.
Issues-
The case involved following issues: -
Is the order and notification that was passed relevant or not?
Is the order and notice in question in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution?
Is the order and notice in question in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution?
Is it possible that the aforementioned order and notice are in violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution?
Is the order and notice in question in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution?
Relevant Provisions:
Article 14, Article 16, Article 21, Article 309, Article 311(2), and Article 313 of the Indian Constitution.
Rule 2 and Rule 56 of the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules
Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Service governs retirement benefits.
G.O.M.S-35 (GAD, dated 8.2.83) and Notification in conjunction with the Andhra Pradesh Public
Employment (Regulation of Conditions of Service) Ordinance.
Analysis:
In this case, the Petitioner objected to the decision to reduce the retirement age from 58 to 55 years
because nothing had changed since the prior ruling, which raised the age restriction from 55 to 58
years on October 29, 1979. Another argument advanced by the same side was that determining the
retirement age has no bearing on offering job options for the youth. Aside from that, the
government's power was arbitrary (subjective) in nature, ignoring important variables in
determining the retirement age. According to them, failing to provide any warning about the
situation was an unreasonable conduct because it would have allowed the disgruntled workers to
plan their affairs before to retirement. Furthermore, the 1979 rise in the retirement age for
employees conflicted with the current order; as a result, the new decision could only be applied to
newcomers. The final and most essential argument made was that the retirement of experienced
and mature professionals will result in a significant loss for the state's public sector.
The respondent, on the other hand, provided two affidavits that contradicted the order in every
way. Officials from the state said that it is the state's responsibility to enact appropriate laws and
procedures to address the problem of unemployment (which peaked at 17,84,699 on December 31,
1982) within the limits of the country's economic capabilities and development. In response to the
petitioner's claims, the State argued that a prior decision to raise the retirement age issued in 1979
was not addressed to the One Man Pay Commission and hence was arbitrary and based on irrelevant
grounds. Additionally, it had no bearing on the present orders and notifications. The previous
consequence of raising the retirement age had not only resulted in a third increase in the number of
jobless young, but it had also harmed their advancement prospects, producing a lot of despondency
among them. According to them, it was critical to solve the situation in this manner. Similar moves
had been taken by the governments of Kerela and Karnataka, and several other states in the nation
had the same retirement age.
Ratio Decidendi of the Case:
The ruling in this case favoured the respondent, i.e. the state. It was agreed that it was critical for
the state to create job opportunities for the state's youth. It was also vital to provide them with
promotional places and chances as soon as feasible.
It was said that a standard framework for applying and governing superannuation should be
developed, taking into account employee performance levels. The court also cited E.P. Royappa v.
State of Tamil Nadu and stated that while determining the legitimacy of policy concerns such as the
retirement age, it is improper for the court to place disruptive claims on a responsive judicial scale
and resolve the matter by determining how the balance tilts.
Fixing the age of superannuation would also be irrational if it did not align with the applicable
criteria for determining the retirement age or if it did not serve the public interest. The order was
not deemed unreasonable in this case since the subject was of public concern. It was also mentioned
that in some circumstances, the Court lacks appropriate means for selecting the most proper choice
among competing options. There are occasions when there are no instructions to go through each
and every detail of a policy.
On the case of Article 311(2)[8], it was decided that it only applies when a public worker is demoted,
terminated, or removed from service as a result of a punishment, that is, where the impact of the
order imposed against him in his interest is to do him harm. An employer's dismissal after attaining
the age of retirement does not constitute his removal from service under Article 311. (20).
On the issue of Article 21[9], the court decided that the State cannot afford to keep its personnel in
service after they have reached their peak performance levels. The concept of retirement does not
infringe on a person's right to a livelihood.
Equals must be treated equally, but unequals must be treated differently, according to Article 14.
The state government was found to be discriminatory in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. G.
Ramakishan[10], since it failed to give an understandable differentia. There was no breach of Article
14[11] of the Indian Constitution in this case.
Conclusion-
In this case, the court was told that it couldn't interfere with the state's policy. In the case of
Mohammad Abdul Kadir v. Union of India[12], which was resolved in 2009, the court stated that it is
a failure of the judges' duty if they are unable to call the authority's attention to the case's claim.
Judges do not act as framers of the Constitution, but rather as catalysts for new policies and changes
to existing policies. However, in the current situation involving judicial review for policymaking, the
conclusion is the polar opposite.

Constitution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts

The case involved following issues: -

Is the order and notification that was passed relevant or not?

Is the order and notice in question in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution?

Is the order and notice in question in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution?

Rule 2 and Rule 56 of the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules

Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Service governs retirement benefits.

Ratio Decidendi of the Case:

You might also like