Holding

The expression "consequential benefits" does not extend to salary or emoluments for periods the employees were not actually in service; it is limited to the benefits expressly provided in the policy documents, and therefore no contempt of the Supreme Court order occurred.

Summary

After the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the State Government issued a series of orders raising the superannuation age for its employees from 58 to 60 years. The Supreme Court, in an order dated 9 August 2017, held that employees who retired on attaining 58 years on or after 2 June 2014 were entitled to service up to 60 years and to the "consequential benefits" arising therefrom. A group of former employees filed contempt petitions alleging that the Government’s failure to pay back wages for the period they were out of service (the interregnum or gap period) violated that order. The Court examined the policy documents, the 28 June 2016 memorandum dealing with the gap period, and the 8 August 2017 Government Order which gave retrospective effect but did not alter the prescribed benefits. It held that "consequential benefits" were limited to the notional benefits specified in the policy documents and did not include salary or emoluments for periods not actually worked. Consequently, no violation of the Supreme Court order was found and the contempt petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

The scope of "consequential benefits" in the Supreme Court order of 9 August 2017, specifically whether it includes back wages for the interregnum period.
Whether the Government of Andhra Pradesh violated the Supreme Court direction by not providing such back wages.
The proper interpretation of the 8 August 2017 Government Order and related policy documents in relation to the employees' benefits.

Legislation cited

Subjects

superannuationage of retirementconsequential benefitscontempt of courtretrospective effectinterregnum periodpolicy documentsbifurcation of Andhra Pradesh

Judgment

[2019] 5 S.C.R. 287 287

K. ANANDA RAO ETC. A
v.
SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. ETC.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.1045-1055 of 2018)
in B
(Civil Appeal Nos.10276, 10277, 10279, 10281, 10282, 10318, 10319,
10320, 10321, 10324 and 10328 of 2017)
MARCH 07, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.] C
Service Law – Consequential Benefits – Bifurcation of the
erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh – On 05.08.2015, GO issued by
the Government of Andhra Pradesh raising the age of
superannuation from 58 years to 60 years – By Resolution dated
18.06.2016, the Resolution dated 05.08.2015 was kept in abeyance D
– Challenged – High Court directed the government to consider the
proposals submitted for enhancement of age of superannuation and
take decision thereupon – Various SLPs filed – Tagged – Pending
matters, the government gave in-principle approval for enhancement
of the age of superannuation vide GO dated 27.06.2017 – GO dated
08.08.2017 issued by the government amended the GO dated E
27.06.2017 stating that the orders shall come into force w.e.f
02.06.2014 – On 09.08.2017 while disposing of the appeals,
Supreme Court ordered that all the employees who superannuated
on account of attainment of age of 58 yrs on 02.06.2014 or
thereafter are entitled to the protection of their service upto 60 years F
of age and to all ‘’consequential benefits’’ arising therefrom –
Present contempt petitions filed submitting inter alia that in terms of
the said order, “consequential benefits” must include all back wages
even for the period the petitioners had not actually worked in their
respective organizations – Held: After the policy decision was taken
on 05.08.2015 to raise the age of superannuation from 58 years to G
60 years that decision was kept in abeyance by Resolution dated
18.06.2016 – This was followed by GO dated 28.06.2016 which
dealt with issues like how after re-induction of the employees
pursuant to enhancement of age of superannuation, the period that
H
287
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A the employees were out of employment, was to be dealt with – It was
always in contemplation that if an employee had superannuated on
attaining the age of 58 years and was thereafter re-inducted in
service with superannuation age being 60 years, he would not be
entitled to any salary or normal emoluments for the interregnum
period or gap period, but would be entitled to certain notional
B
benefits stipulated therein – GO dated 08.08.2017 modified the
earlier decision dated 27.06.2017 to the extent it made such
decisions prospective and gave retrospective effect from 02.06.2014
– However, the said GO did not in any way dilute the principles as
to what would be the situation in case of interregnum period or gap
C period as was specifically dealt with in GO dated 28.06.2016 –
Situation becomes clear by further instructions issued on 11.06.2018
which again referred to gap period – Benefit of enhancement of the
age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years came to be
conferred under policy documents and finally by the GO dated
08.08.2017 – Source was in those policy documents and naturally
D
the extent of benefits was also spelt out in those instruments issued
by the Government – Mere expression “consequential benefits”
would not entitle the concerned employees anything greater than
what was contemplated in the policy documents issued by the State
Government – No violation of the orders passed by Supreme Court
E – Every similarly situated employee would be entitled to the benefits
conferred by policy documents but not for salary and other
emoluments for the period they had not actually worked – Andhra
Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of superannuation)
Act, 1984 – s.3 – Andhra Pradesh Tribal Welfare Resident
Educational Institution Society Retirement Rules, 1999 – r.17 –
F
Andhra Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2014.
Dismissing the Contempt Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The raising of age of superannuation by
amending Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
G (Regulation of age of superannuation) Act, 1984 was soon after
the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The
concern as to what would be the situation if the employees were
finally allocated to the newly carved State of Andhra Pradesh and
the employees by that time had attained the age of 58 years, was

H
K. ANANDA RAO v. SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. 289

dealt with in newly inserted Section 3A in Andhra Pradesh State A
Reorganization Act, 2014. The principle was to re-induct them in
the services under the State of Andhra Pradesh without any break
in service. Further, if the employee had not attained the age of
60 years, he would be re-inducted; and in case he had attained
the age of 60 years, what would in such cases be conferred upon
B
the employees was notional advantage for the purpose of
calculation of his pensionary benefits as if he had rendered service
in the State of Andhra Pradesh. [Para 11] [309-A-C]
1.2 After the policy decision was taken on 05.08.2015 to
raise the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in
respect of employees of Society, that decision was kept in C
abeyance by Resolution dated 18.06.2016. This Resolution stated
that the Government had taken stock of all the developments
and had decided that the issue regarding enhancement of age of
superannuation in respect of employees of the entities and
institutions listed in IX and X Schedule of 2014 Act would be D
taken only after the issue of division of assets and liabilities of
the concerned institutions between the two States was settled
and the allotment of employees was finalized. This was followed
by GO dated 28.06.2016 which dealt with issues like how after
re-induction of the employees pursuant to enhancement of age
of superannuation, the period that the employees were out of E
employment, was to be dealt with. Such period was referred to
as the interregnum period or gap period, and was then dealt with
under various heads. These developments are indicative that it
was always in contemplation that if an employee had
superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years and was thereafter F
re-inducted in service with superannuation age being 60 years,
he would not be entitled to any salary or normal emoluments for
what was referred to as the interregnum period or gap period,
but would be entitled to certain notional benefits stipulated
therein. [Para 12] [309-D-G]
G
1.3 GO dated 08.08.2017 modified the earlier decision dated
27.06.2017 to the extent it had made such decisions prospective
and now gave retrospective effect from 02.06.2014. It thus
undoubtedly relaxed conditions as regards the requirement to

H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A have the rules and regulations amended after due approval by
the Government. It further stated that if an employee was retired
on attaining age of 58 years, he/she shall be reinstated and
continued upto 60 years. However, this GO dated 08.08.2017
did not in any way depart from or dilute the principles as to what
would be the situation in case of interregnum period or gap period
B
as was specifically referred to and dealt with in memo dated
28.06.2016. The situation becomes quite clear by further
instructions issued on 11.06.2018 which again referred to gap
period. [Para 13] [310-B-D]
1.4 Benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation
C from 58 years to 60 years came to be conferred under policy
documents and finally by the GO dated 08.08.2017. Thus, the
source was in those policy documents and naturally the extent of
benefits was also spelt out in those instruments issued by the
Government. The Circular dated 28.06.2016 which was more or
D less adopted in proceedings dated 11.06.2018 must be taken to
be the governing criteria in respect of such employees. Unless
and until that governing criteria was departed from specifically,
mere expression “consequential benefits” would not entitle the
concerned employees anything greater than what was
contemplated in the policy documents issued by the State
E Government. Therefore, no violation of the orders passed by
Supreme Court is found. Every employee, who is similarly situated
would be entitled to the benefits conferred by policy documents
referred to above but not for salary and other emoluments for
the period they had not actually worked. [Paras 17, 18]
F [312-D-G]
B. Prabhakar Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(1985) Suppl. SCC 432: [1985] Suppl. SCR 573 –
distinguished.
G. Rama Mohan Rao and Anr. v. Government of Andhra
G Pradesh & Ors. Etc. 2017(3) ALT 1(High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for States of Telangana and
Andhra Pradesh); D.S. Nakara v. Union of India
(1983) 1 SCC 305 : [1983] 2 SCR 165; Sureshchandra
Singh and Others v. Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd.
and Others (2004) 1 SCC 592 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR
H 937 – referred to.
K. ANANDA RAO v. SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. 291

Case Law Reference A
2017 (3) ALT 1 referred to Para 2.6
[1985] Suppl. SCR 573 distinguished Para 6
[1983] 2 SCR 165 referred to Para 6
[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 937 referred to Para 9 B

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (Civil)
Nos.1045-1055 of 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10276, 10277, 10279, 10281,
10282, 10318, 10319, 10320, 10321, 10324 and 10328 of 2017
C
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2017 of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 10276-77, 10279, 10281,
10282, 10318-19, 10320, 10321, 10324 and 10328 of 2017
With
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 1873-1891/2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.10354- D
10361/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1176/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10366/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1177/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10366/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1178/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10366/2017
E
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1179/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10366/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1181/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 12463/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1180/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10366/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1182/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 12463/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1183/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10366/2017 F
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 959-962/2018 in Civil Appeal
No. 12464/2017
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 954-955/2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10705-
10706/2017
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 1064-1066/2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 12469- G
12470/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 956/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10347/2017

H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A Contempt Petition (C) No. 1130/2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 12469-12470/
2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 958/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10760/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1067/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10345/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1865/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 12457/2017
B Contempt Petition (C) No. 1866/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 12457/2017
(I.A. No. 63451/2018)
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 1141-1165/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10285/
2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1441/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10760/2017
C
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1442/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10330/2017
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 1228-1251/2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10286-
10293/2017
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 1252-1254/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 12866/
2017
D
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1443/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10366/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1444/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10366/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1449/2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10276-10277/
2017
E Contempt Petition (C) No. 1764/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10285/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1445/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 12463/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1448/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10366/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1446/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10366/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1447/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10366/2017
F Diary Nos. 40678, 40697 and 40811 of 2018

P. S. Patwalia, Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advs.,
Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Malo Ji Rao, Ms. Y. Vismal Rao, K. Sharat Kumar,
Ms. M. Yasasvi, Ms. Prerna Singh, Geet Ahuja, Prashant Chaudhary, A.
G V. Rangam, Buddy A Ranganadhan, M. Ravindranath Reddy, L. Joshi,
Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prabha Swami, Ms. Divya Swami, Nikhil Swami,
Nitin S. Tamwekar, Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, T. V. Ratnam, M. Sowri
Dev, Ashish Dogra, Senkara Kausik, I. V. Kasyap, Ch. Leela Sarveswar,

H
K. ANANDA RAO v. SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. 293

Adesh Kumar, Krishan Pal Mavi, M. Srinivas R. Rao, Harinath Reddy, A
Mrs. Sudha Gupta, Sriram P., Sarath S. Janardanan, Sridhar Poraraju,
Ms. Sindoora VNL, Ms. Shivani T., Ms. G. Usha Sri, D. Mahesh Babu,
G. N. Reddy, Ms. Sujatha B., Y. Prabhakara Rao, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. These contempt petitions allege
violation of the judgment and order dated 09.08.2017 passed by this
Court in appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13623
of 2017 (A. Veerraju and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
others) and all connected matters. All the Contempt Petitions give rise C
to the same questions and are dealt with together. Since Contempt
Petition Nos.1045-1055 of 2018, K. Ananda Rao and Ors Shri S.S. Rawat,
IAS, Principal Secretary to Government and Vice-Chairman (FAC)
APTWREI Society and Others and Contempt Petition No.1873-1891 of
2017 (K. Paul and ors. etc. vs Ajay Jain and others etc.) were taken as
lead matters, the facts pertaining to these two contempt cases are D
mentioned in detail.
2. Contempt Petition No.1045-1055 of 2018
2.1 The petitioners are employees of Andhra Pradesh Tribal
Welfare Residential Educational Institution Society (Gurukulam), E
hereinafter referred to as the Society. Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh
Tribal Welfare Resident Educational Institution Society Retirement Rules,
1999 (‘1999 Rules’ for short) inter alia provides for conditions of service
of the employees of the Society and according to Rule 17(1) the age of
retirement for all employees except Class IV employees is 58 years of
age and that of Class IV employees is 60 years. The Society is an F
institution included in Schedule X of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization
Act, 2014, “2014 Act”, for short.
2.2 The age of superannuation in respect of Government
employees under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment
(Regulation of age of superannuation) Act, 1984 (‘1984 Act’ for short) G
was initially 58 years of age. Consequent upon bifurcation of the erstwhile
State of Andhra Pradesh, the Government of Andhra Pradesh took a
decision on 27.06.2014 to raise the age of superannuation from 58 years

H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A to 60 years. Section 3 of 1984 Act was accordingly amended and the
age of superannuation was raised to 60 years. Section 3 of the Amending
Act was as under:
“3. In the principal Act, after section 3 so amended, the following
new section shall be inserted, namely:-
B “Savings. 3A. subject to the provisions of section 3,-
(1) A Government employee belonging to the State Cadre/Multi-
zonal Cadre and who by general or specific order of the
Government of India under sub-section (1) of section 77 of the
Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, and serving
C provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of
Telangana, and if he is finally allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh
by the Government of India under sub-section (2) of section 77 of
the said Act, 2014 shall be deemed to be continuously serving in
the State of Andhra Pradesh.
D (2) A Government employee belonging to the State Cadre/Multi-
zonal Cadre falling in the territories of both the State of Andhra
Pradesh and the State of Telangana, who by a general or a specific
order of the Government of India under sub-section (1) of section
77 of the said Act, 2014, is serving provisionally and retires on
E attaining the age of fifty eight years and on his final allotment,
subsequently to the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Government
of India under sub-section (2) of section 77 of the said Act but
before attaining the age of sixty years, shall be re-inducted into
service/post with effect from the date of his final allotment to the
State of Andhra Pradesh without break in service:
F
Provided that an employee who attained the age of sixty years
before the final allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh by the
government of India, the service rendered in the State of Telangana
till the date of his retirement shall be considered notionally as if,
he has rendered service in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the
G purpose of calculation of his pensionary benefits.
(3) The service conditions of the employee of State Cadre/Multi-
zonal Cadre working provisionally in the State of Andhra Pradesh
and finally allotted by the Government of India under sub-section
(2) of section 77 of the said Act, 2014 to the State of Telangana
H
K. ANANDA RAO v. SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. 295
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

shall be governed by the relevant laws/rules of the State of A
Telangana on such final allotment.”
2.3 On 02.07.2014 vide Memo No.4179/14/HRM-IV/2014,
Finance Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a
Circular clarifying that the enhanced age of superannuation from 58 to
60 years would not be applicable to the State Public Enterprises and B
other autonomous Institutions and Training Centres included in the X
Schedule of 2014 Act and non-teaching employees of the Universities.
Around this time the Society had passed a Special Resolution in the 22nd
Board of Governors’ meeting for division of Gurukulam and allocation
of teaching and non-teaching staff to newly formed States. By
proceedings dated 04.07.2014 the Society issued a list of officers and C
staff provisionally allocated to the new State of Andhra Pradesh.
Thereafter in the 23rd Meeting of the Board of Governors of the Society,
a Resolution was passed agreeing in principle to enhance the age of
superannuation from 58 years to 60 years on par with the Government
employees. D
2.4 Based on the aforesaid Resolution a letter was sent by the
Society to the State requesting for such enhancement of age of
superannuation. On 05.08.2015 GO MS No.61 was issued by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tribal Welfare (EDN A2) Department
raising the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in respect of E
employees working in the Society. On 07.12.2015, the State Government
again issued a Circular directing the managements of all Public Sector
Undertakings and Institutions included in the IX & X Schedules of 2014
Act to submit the proposals regarding change in the age of
superannuation. Thereafter by virtue of Resolution i.e. GO MS No.112
issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh Finance (HR IV – FR) F
Department on 18.06.2016, the Resolution dated 05.08.2015 was kept in
abeyance. The Resolution dated 18.06.2016 was as under:
“5. Government having taken stock of all the above developments
and after careful consideration hereby orders that the enhanced
age of superannuation cannot be made applicable to the employees G
of the Public Sector undertakings and Institutions listed in Ninth
and Tenth Schedules of A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014 until the
matter of division of assets and liabilities of the institution between
the state of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana is settled and the
H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A allotment of the employees between the two states is finalized for
these Public Sector Undertakings/ Institutions. Government would
be in a position to take policy decision on the matter only after
such process is completed in all respects. Orders issued, if any,
by any Department of Public Sector Undertakings/Institutions shall
be kept in abeyance with immediate effect.”
B
2.5 On 28.06.2016, Cir. Memo No.92830/151/HR.IV/2016 was
issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh Finance (HR.IV)
Department issuing following clarifications:-
Sl. Issue raised by DTA Clarification of Finance
C No.
1 Whether the pensionary The Pensionary benefits have to be remitted to
benefits may be remitted Andhra Pradesh only, as the State of Andhra
to Telangana or to the AP Pradesh has to bear the burden of salary for
(as stipulated in the G.O. remaining period of service, payment of
Ms. NO.104, dated pensionary benefits and pension increase
28.08.2015) (including family pension etc.) after the
D employee’s retirement in A.P.
2 Whether all pensionary The following pensionary benefits drawn by
benefits mentioned in the the retired government servant have to be
G.O.Ms.No.1097, dated remitted into Government account.
22.06.2000 are to be 1. Commuted value of pension
remitted 2. Retirement Gratuity
E 3. Encashment of Earned Leave
3 Which period has to be The period from date of retirement to re-
treated as out of induction shall be treated as out of
employment and which employment period. The period from the date
is eligible for of re-induction to the date of reporting on
compulsory wait issue of posting is eligible for compulsory
wait.
F 4 Whether to regularize the The gap period shall be reckoned as
out of employment interregnum period. During the interregnum
period period those who retired may get pension or
equal to the amount of pension if the pension
is not settled.
5 Whether the period of The period of out of employment shall be
G out of employment is considered for release of annual grade
considered as service for increment and pension. The monetary benefit
the purpose of raising of release of increment shall be from the date
annual grade increments, of re-induction only. The period shall be
seniority, promotions, reckoned for seniority, promotions, AAS.
AAS and other benefits
including pension.
H
K. ANANDA RAO v. SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. 297
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

A
6 Whether the GIS It is at the option of the Government servant to
subscription be recovered continue the GIS benefit, and he/she has to
in lump sum with interest remit back the amount already paid and
for the period of out of regulate the gap period by paying the GIS
employment. subscription for the period of out of
employment. B
7 What shall be the Once the PPO is issued by the Authorization
procedure for ensuring issuing authority, such PPO shall be cancelled
the stoppage of pension by the same authority. Therefore, the Pension,
in the other state and Payment authority has to return the PPO to the
cessation of such pension Authorization issuing authority for cancelling
authorization already PPO. When the case of sanctioning pension
C
issued/ to be issued in arises the pension sanctioning authority shall
future by pension issuing seek for fresh authorization/ PPO duly
authorities. following the procedure.
8 Whether it is mandatory The pensionary benefits shall be remitted
to see that the pensionary back. However in extraordinary situations
benefits shall be remitted such proposals may be referred to Finance
back, for the purpose of Department for exemption. D
allowing salary bills of
the re-inducted
employees.
9 While calculating a sum Based on the pay in RPS 2015 on the date of
equal to pension whether completion of 58 years of service, the sum
to take emoluments in equal to pension may be arrived.
RPS, 2010 or RPS 2015
E
for the period from
01.07.2014 to
31.03.2015.

2.6 The Resolution dated 18.06.2016 was challenged by the F
employees of various institutions mentioned in Schedule IX and X of
2014 Act by filing Writ Petitions in the High Court of Judicature at
Hyderabad for States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The High
Court by its judgment and order dated 07.03.2017 passed in G. Rama
Mohan Rao and Anr. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
etc.1 and all connected matters disposed of the matters and concluded G
as under:
“The earlier G.O.s were issued by the Government of A.P. without
these legal entities amending its rules regulations/bye-laws,
1
2017(3)ALT 1; 2017(6) ALD 103; (2017) 11 LLJ 535 AP
H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A governing the age of superannuation and without the prior approval
of the sole/majority shareholder i.e., the State Government as
required under the Articles of Association/ byelaws of these legal
entities. As the Rules and Regulations, by which the petitioners
are governed, stipulate 58 years as the age of retirement, these
employees cannot claim any right to continue in service till they
B
attain the age of 60 years. It is only if the request of these
Companies /Corporations/Societies, for amendment of its byelaws/
rules and regulations, are approved by the State Government, and
the rules/byelaws/regulations are amended thereafter in
accordance with law, would their employees then be governed by
C the enhanced age of superannuation prescribed under the Rules/
bye-laws.
Since the Board of Directors/Managing Committees of these
wholly or substantially government owned Companies/
Corporations/ Societies have submitted proposals, the State
D Government is obligated to consider the request of each of these
corporations/companies/societies separately, based on their
financial position, genuineness of their need to enhance the age of
superannuation etc., and then take a decision whether or not their
request, to enhance the age of superannuation of their employees
from 58 to 60 years, should be approved. Suffice it, if the
E Government of A.P. is directed to consider the proposals submitted
by each of these corporation/societies/companies, for
enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years in
accordance with law, and take a decision thereupon at the earliest,
in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of
F a copy of this order.
All the Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. The
miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No
costs.”
2.7 SLP (C)No.13623 of 2017 was filed, therefore, by some of
G the employees of the Society challenging said decision dated 07.03.2017.
It was submitted by them that a decision had already been taken by the
Society for raising the age of superannuation and all that was required to
be done was only a formal expression of the decision in the form of an
appropriate legislation. While issuing notice on 27.04.2017 this Court
H passed following interim order:
K. ANANDA RAO v. SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. 299
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

“In the above circumstances, until further orders, the A
superannuation in the case of those teachers on attaining the age
of 58 years in respondent No.3/Society (Gurukulam) shall be
deferred.”
2.8 Special Leave Petition (Civil)Nos.14033-14034 of 2017
preferred by the present contempt petitioners and other connected matters B
filed by similarly situated employees of the Society thereafter came-up
before this Court on 05.05.2017. This Court noted that Special Leave
Petition (Civil)No.13623 of 2017 seeking similar relief was already
pending. While issuing notice, this Court directed:-
“Until further orders, the superannuation in the case of C
employees on attaining the age of 58 years in the respondent-
institutions shall be deferred.
Needless to say that in case any employee has retired only
on the ground of attaining the age of 58 years, such employees
shall be reinstated and continued in service until further orders, D
but in no case, beyond 60 years.
We also make it clear that this order will apply to all similarly
situated employees under the respondent-institutions whether they
are the petitioners before this Court or not and, therefore, those
similarly situated persons need not travel to this Court. E
Tag with SLP (C) No.13623 of 2017.”
2.9 Later, one more similar matter i.e. Special Leave Petition
(Civil)No.14860 of 2017 came-up before this Court and while issuing
notice on 09.05.2017 following order was passed by this Court:-
F
“The employees in the respondent-institutions shall not be
superannuated only on the ground of attainment of 58 years of
age. In case, any such has been superannuated on that ground,
such employee shall be reinstated and continued upto the age of
60 years, subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition.”
2.10 While the challenge was thus pending, G.O.Ms.No.102 dated G
27.06.2017 was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance
(HR.IV-FR) Department. After considering the matters, the Government
decided to give in-principle approval for enhancement of the age of
superannuation. The relevant portion of the Order was as under:-
H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A “4. Government after careful examination of the matter hereby
accord to give in-principle approval to enhance the age of
superannuation of employees working in the institutions listed in
IX and X Schedule Institutions subject to the following conditions:
1. The specific decision to enhance the superannuation age
B from 58 to 60 years to their employees shall be taken by
the Board of Directors/Managing Committees of these legal
entities.
2. While doing so, these Institutions shall take into consideration
their financial position and genuineness of their need to
C enhance the age of superannuation.
3. In case of Residential Education Societies, the decision
should be based on the genuineness of their need and
assessment of performance of these societies.
5. These orders shall come into force prospectively from the date
D of issue of the orders by competent authorities after amending
the relevant regulations/bye-laws.
6. Any order issued by any department which is repugnant to this
order shall be deemed to have been modified or superseded to the
extent of repugnancy.”
E
2.11 All the aforementioned matters, the lead matter being Special
Leave Petition (Civil)No.13623 of 2017, thereafter came-up before this
Court on 31.07.2017. The State had prayed for time to file its affidavit-
in-reply. This Court directed the State to respond to certain issues in the
affidavit-in-reply and directed the matters to be listed on 09.08.2017.
F Relevant portion of the order reads as under:-
“In the counter affidavit it shall be mentioned as to why
those who are similarly situated as those covered by the order
dated 05.05.2017 have not been granted the same benefit. We
also make it clear that in case the order dated 05.05.2017 has not
G been implemented, the benefits due to the beneficiaries covered
by the said order shall be deemed to have been in service from
the date of the order and those responsible for non-implementation
shall be personally liable for the consequences.”

H
K. ANANDA RAO v. SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. 301
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

3. Contempt Petition Nos.1873-1891 of 2017 A
3.1 The petitioners had originally joined the services of the erstwhile
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board (APSEB) and their service conditions
were regulated by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service
Regulations. APSEB was reorganized into Andhra Pradesh Transmission
Corporation Ltd. (APTRANSCO), Andhra Pradesh Power Generation B
Corporation Ltd. (APGENCO), Andhra Pradesh Central Power
Distribution Company Ltd. (APCPDCL), Andhra Pradesh Southern
Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APSPDCL) and Andhra Pradesh
Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APEPDCL), collectively
referred to as the Power Utilities. The services of the petitioners were
thereafter transferred to the Power Utilities. After Section 3 of 1984 C
Act was amended to raise the age of superannuation to 60 years as
stated above, the Power Utilities had taken a decision on 29.06.2014 to
implement the orders of the Government and continue the service of all
employees who were to attain the age of 58 years as on 30.06.2014 upto
60 years. D
3.2 On 23.12.2014 a letter was written by the State Government
informing APGENCO, APEPDCL and APSPDCL that the Pay Revision
Commission had agreed for enhancement of the age of superannuation
from 58 years to 60 years on par with the employees of the State
Government. On 28.10.2015 a letter was addressed by the State E
Government to APTRASCO, APGENCO, APEPDCL, APSPDCL that
the proposal for enhancement of age of superannuation of the employees
of Power Utilities would be considered after issuance of orders by the
State Government on demerger of the respective corporations and after
the process of final allocation of the employees was completed and after
due examination of viability of the corporations. F

3.3 Thereafter, on 26.11.2015 an Advisory Memo bearing no.459/
PE.II/A1/2015 was issued by the State Government to all the departments
to keep the orders, if any, issued for enhancement of the age of
superannuation of the employees of public undertakings in abeyance
pending orders formulating the policy in that behalf. The relevant partition G
of the Memo was as under:
“4. In view of the facts and circumstances supra, the government
has decided to examine the matter holistically and in its totality

H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A and thereafter adopt a uniform policy in the matter relating to the
extension of the age of superannuation of the employees of the
Public Sector Undertakings in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
1. Therefore, till the orders formulating the policy regarding the
extension of the age of superannuation of the employees of the
B Public Sector Undertakings in the State of Andhra Pradesh are
issued by the Government, all Secretariat, Departments, including
the Water Resources Department, are advised to keep the orders,
if any issued, of enhancement of the age of superannuation from
58 years to 60 years of the employees of Public Sector
Undertakings under their administrative control, in abeyance with
C immediate effect.”
3.4 After the disposal of Writ Petition Nos.18205 of 2014 and all
connected matters (G. Rama Mohan Rao and Anr. vs. Government
of Andhra Pradesh etc.) on 07.03.2017 as stated above, writ petition
filed by the petitioners namely W.P. (C) No.25937 of 2015 and all
D connected matters were disposed of by the High Court on 21.03.2017.
Thereafter the petitioners filed Special Leave Petition No.21854 of 2017
on 28.07.2017, which was tagged with the matters which were to come
up on 09.08.2017.
4. In the meantime, the matter was under consideration of the
E State Government. On 08.08.2017 G.O.Ms.No.138 was issued by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance (HR.IV-FR) Department. The
background facts were noted in said Order as under:-
“The G.O.Ms.No.102 dated 27.06.2017 was issued giving State
Government’s approval in-principle and conditional consent for
F extension of superannuation of 60 years to employees of
institutions listed in the IX and X schedules of AP Reorganization
Act of 2014. The conditions were laid down for the detailed
examination of the working of the various Companies/Corporations/
Societies and their financial capabilities so as to decide whether
G they are financially viable or not. The orders were to come into
force prospectively after such examination. Also the Andhra
Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of
Superannuation) Act, 1984 amended by Act No.4 of 2014 of the
State Government would not automatically apply to the schedule
IX and schedule X institutions as they are separate legal entities
H
K. ANANDA RAO v. SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. 303
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

with their own Acts and Rules. Any decision on enhancement of A
superannuation age of employees would have to be taken by the
board of directors/managing committees. As the State Government
is the majority stakeholder, its approval of the decision of the
governing body becomes necessary. After this, the rules/bye-
laws of these institutions need to be amended to give effect to the
B
decision. Any extension of retirement age would come into effect
only from the date of issue of orders by the competent authorities.
It follows therefore that the orders would be prospective.
2. Another reason for state government taking time on the issue
was the fact that the matter of division of assets and liabilities of
these institutions is still pending and the employees also have not C
been allocated between the States of Telangana and Andhra
Pradesh. At this juncture enhancing the superannuation age for
the employees would have complicated matters, because of which,
more employees would opt for Institutions in Andhra Pradesh which
would affect their viability.” D
The Order further noted that the challenge was pending in this
Court. The Order stated that after reconsideration of the issue, the
Government had decided to amend the G.O.Ms.No.102, Finance (HR.IV-
FR) Department, dated 27.06.2017 and for the expression, “these orders
shall come into force prospectively from the date of issue of the E
orders by competent authorities after amendment the relevant
regulations/bye-laws” appearing in G.O.MS.No.102, the following
expression was substituted:-
“These orders shall come into force with effect from
02.06.2014. The Companies/Corporations/Societies shall F
amend their relevant regulations/bye-laws accordingly.”
Para 5 of the said Order dated 08.08.2017 further stated:
“5. In furtherance of this amended clause Government hereby
order that the employees working in Companies/ Corporations/
Societies included in the Schedules IX and X of the Andhra Pradesh G
State Reorganization Act, 2014, shall not be superannuated only
on the ground of attainment of 58 years of age. In case such an
employee is superannuated on that ground he/she shall be reinstated
and continued upto 60 years.”
H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A 5. All the Special Leave Petitions thereafter came next day before
this Court i.e. on 09.08.2017 and while disposing of the appeals after
granting leave, the following order was passed:
“5. The appellants approached this Court with certain grievances
regarding their continuance in service upto 60 years of age.
B 6. According to the Government Companies/ Corporation/Societies
where they have been working and which are included in the
Schedules IX and X of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act
of 2014, since the Government had not granted approval to the
recommendation for continuance upto 60 years of age, they would
C not be entitled to continue until and unless the Government takes
a decision.
7. When the matters reached this Court, this Court in some cases
had granted an interim order for continuance upto 60 years of
age.
D 8. Be that as it may, learned counsel appearing for the State of
Andhra Pradesh has today brought to our notice an order dated
08.08.2017 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh whereby
such employees have been granted the benefit of continuance
upto 60 years of age. It has been ordered that the “said order
E dated 8.8.2017 …. shall come into force with effect from
02.06.2014.”
9. In that view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to retain
these appeals in this Court any further. The stand of the
Government is very clear. The Government Order dated
F 08.08.2017 permitting the employees to continue upto the age of
60 years has come into effect with effect from 02.06.2014.
Therefore, all employees who have superannuated on account of
attainment of age of 58 years on 02.06.2014 or thereafter are
entitled to the protection of their service upto 60 years of age and
naturally to all consequential benefits arising therefrom.
G
10. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.”
6. Thereafter, Contempt Petitions were filed by the employees
submitting inter alia that in terms of the order dated 09.08.2017 all
consequential benefits arising out of raising the age of superannuation
H
K. ANANDA RAO v. SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. 305
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

had to be extended to those who had superannuated on attaining age of A
58 years on or after 02.06.2014. According to the petitioners the
“consequential benefits” would and must include all back wages even
for the period the petitioners had not actually worked in their respective
organizations. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in B.
Prabhakar Rao and ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2 where certain
B
directions were issued after the age of superannuation was raised from
55 years to 58 years. This Court directed in para 23 as under:-
“23. Finally we come to the question of the relief to be granted.
We find that C1.3(1) of Ordinance No.24 of 84 and Sec.4(1) of
Act No.3 of 1985 may easily be brought to conform to the
requirements of Art.14 of the Constitution by striking down or C
omitting the naughty word ‘not’ from those provisions. We may
possibly achieve the same object by striking down the whole of
c1.3(1) of the Ordinance and Sec.4(1) of the Act but then the
question may arise whether the rest of the Act would be sufficient
to bring in these who have been excluded. We think that the D
safer course would be to strike down the offending word ‘not’
from these provisions. That we have such power is clearly laid
down in Nakara’s case3 where the court directed the deletion of
some words from the offending clause and directed it to be read
without those words. To make matters clear and to put them
beyond dispute, we give the following directions in exercise of E
our powers under Art.32 and 142 of the Constitution:
“1. All employees of the Government, public corporations and
local authorities, who were retired from service on the ground
that they had attained the age of 55 years by February 28,
1983 or between February 28, 1983 and August 23, 1984, shall F
be reinstated in service provided they would not be completing
the age of 58 years on or before October 31, 1985.
2. All employees who were compelled to retire on February
28, 1983 and between February 28, 1983 and August 23, 1984
and who are not eligible for reinstatement under the first clause, G
shall be entitled to be paid compensation equal to the total
emoluments which they would have received, had they been
in service, until they attained the age of 58 years, less any
2
1985 (Supp) SCC 432
3
D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India - (1983) 1 SCC 305 H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A amount they might have received ex-gratia or by way of
pension etc. or under the Interim orders of this Court. They
will be entitled to consequential retiral benefits. … … …”
7. After notices were issued by this Court, the State filed its
affidavit in reply. It was submitted that in terms of GO No.138 dated
B 08.08.2017, Order was issued titled as Procg.Rc.No.B3/Legal/SLPs-
even-2017/2018 on 11.06.2018. By this Order, following instructions
were issued for regularization of gap period in respect of retired and re-
inducted employees of the society due to enhancement in age of
superannuation:
C 1. “The gap period will be regularized as leave to which they are
eligible (EL/HPL) by the Principals concerned and in case no
leave is due, the period should be treated as EOL. The Principals
are hereby authorized to issue necessary orders for regularizing
the gap period of the employees strictly complying with the
above instructions. They should personally verify the fulfilment
D of prescribed conditions before issuing orders.
2. If the gap period is treated as eligible leave, the Annual Grade
Increment will be sanctioned as per eligibility. If the leave period
is treated as EOL, the date of Annual Grade Increment will be
postponed accordingly.
E
3. If, E.L. and H.P.L. encashment amount or any other retirement
benefits for which he/she was not entitled due to his/her
reinstatement into the service has been paid to the individual at
the time of his/her initial retirement (i.e. on completion of 58
years of age), the said amount shall be recovered from the
F individual and remit to the Society funds with proper entry
recorded in the Service Register, by 30.06.2018. For any excess
drawal/non-recovery of EL/HPL encashment/other such
amounts, in respect of any individual, the Principal concerned
will be held responsible.”
G 8. In these contempt petitions the arguments were led by Mr. P.S.
Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate which were adopted by the other
learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. It was submitted:-
(a) The Government order dated 08.08.2017 clearly stipulated
that the employees working in entities included in Schedules IX and X of
H
K. ANANDA RAO v. SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. 307
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

2014 Act would not be superannuated only on the ground of attainment A
of 58 years of age and if any such employee was superannuated on that
ground, he/she would be reinstated and continued upto 60 years.
(b) This Order was given retrospective effect from 02.06.2014
and a direction was issued to all the companies/corporations/societies to
amend their relevant regulations or byelaws accordingly. B
(c) In terms of aforesaid order dated 08.08.2017, the matters stood
disposed of by this Court on 09.08.2017. The operative direction that all
employees who had superannuated on account of attainment of age of
58 years on 02.08.2014 or thereafter were entitled to “the protection of
their services upto 60 years of age and inter alia to all consequential C
benefits arising therefrom” was clear that all benefits arising out of
enhancement in age must logically flow in favour of the employees.
(d) The effect of said order would mean that such employees
would always be treated to be in service till they had attained age of 60
years and as such the “consequential benefits” must include back wages D
and full emoluments for the period that the employees were not allowed
to work.
9. Shri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate appeared
for the alleged contemnors in Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1045-1055 of
2018 and in Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1873-1891 of 20017. Mr. Parag E
P. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate appeared for alleged contemnors in
matters pertaining to Andhra Pradesh Housing Corporation, namely,
Contempt Petition (C) No.1130 of 2018 in C.A. No.12469-70 of 2017.
The learned Senior Advocates as well as other learned Advocates
appearing in connected matters submitted:
F
(a) Initially special leave petitions pertaining to the employees of
the Society alone had come up before this Court in which Orders dated
27.04.2017, 05.05.2017 and 09.05.2017 were passed. In other matters
relating to the employees of other institutions/entities no orders were
passed and those matters were simply tagged with the matters pertaining
to the Society. Consequently, no notices were issued to respondent(s) in G
those matters which came to be finally disposed of on 09.08.2017.
(b) In the light of the facts leading to the issuance of G.O. dated
08.08.2017, all matters were disposed of without going into the merits.
Such disposal would mean and imply that the protection afforded by
H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A various policy documents leading to said GO dated 08.08.2017 was found
to be adequate.
(c) In any case expression “consequential benefits” occurring in
the order dated 09.08.2017 cannot be given the expanded meaning and
scope as was contended by the contempt petitioners. The Policy
B Documents on record which culminated in the G.O. order dated
08.08.2017 had sufficiently clarified as to what benefits would be given
to the employees after enhancement of superannuation age from 58
years to 60 years.
(d) Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate relied upon
C the decision of this Court in Sureshchandra Singh and others v.
Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. and others4.
10. It is true that the initial orders dated 27.04.2017, 05.05.2017
and 09.05.2017 were passed in matters pertaining to the employees of
Gurukulam or Society. All these orders were ex-parte orders. Insofar
D as the employees of the Society are concerned, it was submitted before
this Court on 27.04.2017 that a decision had already been taken by the
Society for raising the age of superannuation and all that was required to
be done in the matter was only a formal expression in the form of an
appropriate legislation. The expression in the order dated 05.05.2017
that the protection afforded would apply “to all similarly situated employees
E under the respondent institutions” was only in respect of the employees
of the Society and not in relation to employees of all the other entities
mentioned in Schedules IX and X of 2014 Act. As a matter of fact, no
notice was issued in any matter apart from the matters pertaining to the
Society and all such other matters were simply tagged with the main
F bunch of cases which came up before this Court and were disposed of
on 09.08.2017. The learned Advocates appearing for the alleged
contemnors are right in their submission that insofar as entities other
than the Society were concerned, the order dated 09.08.2017 was not
passed after due notice to them. Nonetheless the State was definitely
represented before this Court on 09.08.2017 and was heard. We do not
G therefore, deem it appropriate to decide these Contempt Petitions purely
on this issue and, therefore, proceed to consider the merits and whether
there has been any violation of the directions issued by this Court on
09.08.2017.

4
H (2004) 1 SCC 592
K. ANANDA RAO v. SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. 309
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

11. The raising of age of superannuation by amending Section 3 A
of 1984 Act was soon after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of
Andhra Pradesh. The concern as to what would be the situation if the
employees were finally allocated to the newly carved State of Andhra
Pradesh and the employees by that time had attained the age of 58
years, was dealt with in newly inserted Section 3A in 2014 Act. The
B
principle was to re-induct them in the services under the State of Andhra
Pradesh without any break in service. Further, if the employee had not
attained the age of 60 years, he would be re-inducted; and in case he
had attained the age of 60 years, what would in such cases be conferred
upon the employees was notional advantage for the purpose of calculation
of his pensionary benefits as if he had rendered service in the State of C
Andhra Pradesh.
12. After the policy decision was taken on 05.08.2015 to raise the
age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in respect of employees
of Society, that decision was kept in abeyance by Resolution dated
18.06.2016. This Resolution states that the Government had taken stock D
of all the developments and had decided that the issue regarding
enhancement of age of superannuation in respect of employees of the
entities and institutions listed in IX and X Schedule of 2014 Act would be
taken only after the issue of division of assets and liabilities of the
concerned institutions between the two States was settled and the
allotment of employees was finalized. This was followed by GO dated E
28.06.2016 which dealt with issues like how after re-induction of the
employees pursuant to enhancement of age of superannuation, the period
that the employees were out of employment, was to be dealt with. Such
period was referred to as the interregnum period or gap period, and was
then dealt with under various heads. These developments are indicative F
that it was always in contemplation that if an employee had superannuated
on attaining the age of 58 years and was thereafter re-inducted in service
with superannuation age being 60 years, he would not be entitled to any
salary or normal emoluments for what was referred to as the interregnum
period or gap period, but would be entitled to certain notional benefits
stipulated therein. G

13. Even after the disposal of petitions by the High Court, the
matter was receiving the attention of the State Government which is
evident from GO dated 08.08.2017. It referred to the background facts

H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A including the requirement to have the concerned rules or regulations
regarding the service conditions of employees in establishments in
Schedule IX and X to be amended after due approval by the Government
and after consideration whether such establishments were finally capable
and viable. One of the factors which was recited was about that the
issue of division of assets and liabilities was still pending and that the
B
allocation of the employees was not yet finalized. The GO modified the
earlier decision dated 27.06.2017 to the extent it had made such decisions
prospective and now gave retrospective effect from 02.06.2014. It thus
undoubtedly relaxed conditions as regards the requirement to have the
rules and regulations amended after due approval by the Government.
C It further stated that if an employee was retired on attaining age of 58
years, he/she shall be reinstated and continued upto 60 years. However,
this GO dated 08.08.2017 did not in any way depart from or dilute the
principles as to what would be the situation in case of interregnum period
or gap period as was specifically referred to and dealt with in memo
dated 28.06.2016. The situation becomes quite clear by further
D
instructions issued on 11.06.2018 which again referred to gap period.
14. Since all these issues were not canvased before this Court
and were not gone into by this Court on 09.08.2017, the question that
arises is whether the expression “consequential benefits” occurring in
the order dated 09.08.2017 must be given the interpretation that the
E employees were entitled to all salaries and emoluments for the period
that they had not even worked in their respective organisations? The
order dated 09.08.2017 does not indicate that any such aspect of the
matter was in contemplation of this Court or the matter was addressed
from this stand point. In the absence of any discussion, it is very difficult
F to say that this Court had thought of granting something which was in
excess of what was contemplated in various policy documents culminating
in the GO dated 08.08.2017. Those policy documents were not overridden
or in way found to be inoperative. As a matter of fact, they were not
even referred to.
G 15. In this background we need to consider the expression
“consequential benefits” in said order dated 09.8.2017. The contempt
petitioners submit that going by the law laid down by this Court in B.
Prabhakar Rao2 and particularly direction No.2 therein the financial
benefits in the nature of salary and other emoluments must be given to

H
K. ANANDA RAO v. SRI S.S. RAWAT, IAS AND ORS. 311
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

the employees even for the period that the employees had not worked. A
But the situation in B. Prabhakar Rao2 was completely different. There,
the issue was only regarding raising of age of retirement from 55 years
to 58 years. In the present case the decision of raising the age of
superannuation was more or less contemporaneous with bifurcation of
the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The division of assets and liabilities
B
was still to be undertaken. The issue of allocation of employees in various
institutions in the erstwhile State was also to be finalized. And lastly,
there was a clear direction issued by this Court invoking powers under
142 of the Constitution of India. No such power was invoked or exercised
while passing the order dated on 09.08.2017.
16. In Sureshchandra Singh4, this Court dealt with somewhat C
similar issue. After enhancement of the retirement age of the Central
Government employees from 58 years to 60 years, the employees working
in Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises also raised similar demand on
the principle of parity. The matter was considered by this Court in
paragraph 5 as under: D
“5. Here the Government of India took a policy decision to increase
the retirement of Central Government employees. Application of
that decision in respect of employees of public sector enterprises
is dependent upon so many factors that are to be taken into account
in the light of the peculiar characteristics of each company or E
corporation or department. So the first OM itself provides that
the order will come into force only with effect from the date of
notification of amendment to the relevant rules and regulations.
So it is for the authority concerned to make necessary changes in
the rules and regulations after taking into account all the relevant
aspects. Immediately after the first OM dated 13-5-1998 the F
Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Industry,
Government of India issued OM dated 19-5-1998 wherein the
modalities of the implementation of the first OM in this Department
was detailed. Here it is pertinent to note that the OM dated
19-5-1998 is not an instruction issued in the name of the President. G
On the other hand, it was issued by the Department of Public
Enterprises, which is advisory in nature. It accorded a broad
discretion to the corporations or companies for the implementation
of the enhanced retirement age after taking into account all the

H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A relevant factors. Pursuant to this direction the Board of Directors
of FCIL took the decision not to increase the retirement age of its
employees. The relevant factors that prevailed upon the Board of
Directors are fully set out in its resolution and they are: that the
Company is one of the highest loss-making company in the
country; that the accumulated loss till the relevant date was to the
B
tune of Rs 5049 crores; that the Company is incurring financial
losses of roughly Rs 2.35 crores everyday; that the Company has
no capacity to pay salaries to its employees; that the Company
was referred to BIFR and was declared as sick on 6-11-1992;
that as on the relevant date the Company has the negative net
C worth to the tune of Rs.4316.21 crores and; that the Company
has surplus manpower; that it is not taking any new employees
but on the contrary it is making conscious efforts to reduce the
surplus manpower.”
17. Thus, purely on the principle of parity the employees of the
D institution or entities in Schedule IX and X of 2014 Act could not demand
the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years
to 60 years. That benefit came to be conferred under policy documents
and finally by the GO dated 08.08.2017. Thus, the source was in those
policy documents and naturally the extent of benefits was also spelt out
in those instruments issued by the Government. The Circular dated
E 28.06.2016 which was more or less adopted in proceedings dated
11.06.2018 must be taken to be the governing criteria in respect of such
employees. Unless and until that governing criteria was departed from
specifically, mere expression “consequential benefits” would not entitle
the concerned employees anything greater than what was contemplated
F in the policy documents issued by the State Government.
18. We, therefore, do not find any violation of the orders passed
by this Court and dismiss these contempt petitions. It goes without saying
that every employee, who is similarly situated would be entitled to the
benefits conferred by policy documents referred to above but not for
G salary and other emoluments for the period they had not actually worked.
19. We are grateful for the assistance rendered by all the learned
counsel.

Divya Pandey Contempt Petitions dismissed.
H