CASE SUMMARY – B. PRABAKAR RAO VS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Author – J Shruthi

A) CITATION:

 AIR 1985 Supp SCC 432

B) BENCH:

Justice O.C.Reddy

Justice  Eradi V.Balakrishna

Justice V.Khalid

C) INTRODUCTION:

The age of superannuation to the employees in the State of Andhra Pradesh is 55 years to begin, but during the year of 1978, the government raised the age to 58. Later at 1983, the age was again reduced to 55 and the directions were given to all local and public authorities to act accordingly.

D) FACTS:

To bring out the changes, government amended the Rule 56(a) of the fundamental rules and Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Rules and the figure 58 was stricken out and 55 was added. In addition to this, Proviso to Rule 2 was scrapped off which protected the employee from any changes to the conditions of their services which may lead to detriment effect on their employment after they have entered into service. The Andhra Pradesh Ordinance was promulgated which provided that every government shall retire from service on the last day of the month when they attain 55 years of age.

 After this change was made, a large number of government employees, teachers and those who work in government sectors filed writ petitions challenging the provisions that lead to this change in the age of superannuation.

E) ISSUES AND FACTS OF LAW:

i) Whether the classification of employees who attained 55 years of age between 28.2.1983 and 28.2.1984 is an reasonable classification?

F) JUDGEMENT:

The court held that all the employees of the government, local authorities and public corporations who were retired on the ground that they attained 55 years shall be reinstated in service.

Those who are not entitled to reinstatement shall be provided with compensation equal to total emoluments which they would have received had they been active in their service.

The reinstated employees would receive compensation for the period they were out of service.

G) ANALYSIS:

The court expressed grave concern towards the injustice that the employees faced due to these discrepancies in the age of retirement. The judges expressed how burdened they would have felt due to this issue. They would have many financial commitments keeping in mind that they would be in employment till 58 years.