Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.  K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) Nos.1045-1055 of 2018 In  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10276, 10277, 10279, 10281, 10282, 10318, 10319, 10320, 10321, 10324 and 10328 OF 2017

K. Ananda Rao etc. ….. Petitioners

Versus

Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and ors. etc. ….. Contemnors/      Respondents

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) Nos.1873-1891 of 2017 In  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10354-10361 of 2017

WITH   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1176/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017  

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1177/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1178/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1179/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1181/2018 in C.A. No.12463/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1180/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017  

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1182/2018 in C.A. No.12463/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1183/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017  

CONMT.PET.(C) Nos.959-962/2018 in C.A. No.12464/2017  

CONMT.PET.(C) Nos.954-955/2018 in C.A. No.10705-10706/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1064-1066/2018 in C.A. No.12469-12470/2017  

CONMT.PET.(C) No.956/2018 in C.A. No.10347/2017  

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1130/2018 in C.A. No.12469-12470/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.958/2018 in C.A. No.10760/2017  

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1067/2018 in C.A. No.10345/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1865/2018 in C.A. No.12457/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1866/2018 in C.A. No.12457/2017  

(IA NO.63541/2018)

CONMT.PET.(C) Nos.1141-1165/2018 in C.A. No.10285/2017  

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1441/2018 in C.A. No.10760/2017

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1442/2018 in C.A. No.10330/2017  

CONMT.PET.(C) Nos.1228-1251/2018 in C.A. Nos.10286-10293/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) Nos.1252-1254/2018 in C.A. No.12866/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1443/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1444/2018 in C.A. Nos.10366/2017  

2

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1449/2018 in C.A. Nos.10276-10277/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1764/2018 in C.A. No.10285/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1445/2018 in C.A. No.12463/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1448/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1446/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017   

CONMT.PET.(C) No.1447/2018 in C.A. No.10366/2017   

Diary No.40678/2018   

Diary No.40697/2018   

Diary No.40811/2018  

 JUDGMENT

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  to  the  same questions  and are  dealt  with

together.  Since Contempt Petition Nos.1045-1055 of 2018, K. Ananda

3

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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 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),  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 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

4

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

age of superannuation) Act, 1984 (‘1984 Act’ for short) 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 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:-

“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 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.

(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

5

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

under sub-section (1) of section 77 of the said Act, 2014, is serving provisionally and retires on 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:

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 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 shall be governed by the relevant laws/rules of the  State  of  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

6

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

would  not  be  applicable  to  the  State  Public  Enterprises  and  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  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.   

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 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

7

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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) 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 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 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.”

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. No.

Issue  raised  by DTA

Clarification of Finance

1 Whether  the pensionary  benefits

The Pensionary benefits have to be remitted to Andhra Pradesh only, as

8

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

may be remitted to Telangana or to the AP (as stipulated in the  G.O.  Ms. NO.104,  dated 28.08.2015)

the State of  Andhra Pradesh has to bear  the  burden  of  salary  for remaining  period  of  service, payment of pensionary benefits and pension  increase  (including  family pension  etc.)  after  the  employee’s retirement in A.P.

2 Whether  all pensionary  benefits mentioned  in  the G.O.Ms.No.1097, dated  22.06.2000 are to be remitted

The  following  pensionary  benefits drawn  by  the  retired  government servant  have  to  be  remitted  into Government account.

1. Commuted value of pension 2. Retirement Gratuity 3. Encashment of Earned Leave

3 Which period has to be  treated as out of employment  and which is eligible for compulsory wait

The period from date of  retirement to re-induction shall be treated as out of employment period.  The period from the date of re-induction to the date of reporting on issue of posting is eligible for compulsory wait.

4 Whether  to regularize the out of employment period

The gap period shall be reckoned as interregnum  period.   During  the interregnum  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  out  of employment  is considered  as service  for  the purpose  of  raising annual  grade increments, seniority, promotions,  AAS and  other  benefits including pension.

The  period  of  out  of  employment shall  be  considered  for  release  of annual grade increment and pension. The monetary benefit  of  release  of increment shall be from the date of re-induction only.  The period shall be  reckoned  for  seniority, promotions, AAS.

9

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

6 Whether  the  GIS subscription  be recovered  in  lump sum  with  interest for the period of out of employment.

It is at the option of the Government servant to continue the GIS benefit, and  he/she  has  to  remit  back  the amount already paid and regulate the gap  period  by  paying  the  GIS subscription for the period of out of employment.

7 What  shall  be  the procedure  for ensuring  the stoppage of pension in  the  other  state and  cessation  of such  pension authorization already  issued/  to be  issued  in  future by  pension  issuing authorities.

Once  the  PPO  is  issued  by  the Authorization issuing authority, such PPO shall be cancelled by the same authority.   Therefore,  the  Pension, Payment authority has to return the PPO  to  the  Authorization  issuing authority for cancelling PPO.  When the  case  of  sanctioning  pension arises  the  pension  sanctioning authority  shall  seek  for  fresh authorization/  PPO  duly  following the procedure.

8 Whether  it  is mandatory  to  see that  the  pensionary benefits  shall  be remitted  back,  for the  purpose  of allowing  salary bills  of  the  re- inducted employees.

The  pensionary  benefits  shall  be remitted  back.   However  in extraordinary  situations  such proposals may be referred to Finance Department for exemption.

9 While calculating a sum  equal  to pension  whether  to take emoluments in RPS,  2010  or  RPS 2015 for the period from 01.07.2014 to 31.03.2015.

Based on the pay in  RPS 2015 on the date of completion of 58 years of service,  the  sum  equal  to  pension may be arrived.

10

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

2.6 The  Resolution  dated  18.06.2016  was  challenged  by  the

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 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,  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 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  the enhanced  age  of  superannuation  prescribed  under the Rules/bye-laws.

1 2017(3)ALT 1; 2017(6) ALD 103; (2017) 11 LLJ 535 AP

11

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

Since  the  Board  of  Directors/Managing Committees  of  these  wholly  or  substantially government  owned  Companies/Corporations/ Societies  have  submitted  proposals,  the  State 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 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  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  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 passed following interim order:

12

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

“In the above circumstances,  until  further orders, the 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  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 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, 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.

Tag with SLP (C) No.13623 of 2017.”

13

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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:-  

“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 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:-

“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 from 58 to 60 years to their  employees  shall  be  taken  by  the Board of Directors/Managing Committees of these legal entities.

14

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

2. While  doing  so,  these  Institutions  shall take  into  consideration  their  financial position and genuineness of their need to 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  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.”

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.  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 been implemented, the benefits due to the beneficiaries covered by the said order shall be

15

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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.”

3. Contempt Petition Nos.1873-1891 of 2017

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  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 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.

16

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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  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.

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  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  and  thereafter  adopt  a uniform policy in the matter relating to the extension of the  age  of  superannuation  of  the  employees  of  the

17

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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 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  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 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  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:-

18

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

“The  G.O.Ms.No.102  dated  27.06.2017  was  issued giving  State  Government’s  approval  in-principle  and conditional consent for 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 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  with  their  own  Acts  and  Rules. Any decision on enhancement of 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 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 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.”

19

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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 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  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  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.”

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:

20

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

“5. The appellants approached this Court with certain grievances regarding their continuance in service upto 60 years of age.

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 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.

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 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  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.

21

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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 had to be extended to those

who had superannuated on attaining age of 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 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 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 safer course would be to strike  down  the  offending  word  ‘not’  from  these provisions.  That we have such power is clearly laid

2 1985 (Supp) SCC 432

22

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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  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 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,  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 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 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

3 D.S. Nakara  vs.  Union of India - (1983) 1 SCC 305

23

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

regularization of gap period in respect of retired and re-inducted employees of

the society due to enhancement in age of superannuation:   

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 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.

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 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.”

24

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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 2014

Act would not be superannuated only on the ground of attainment 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.

(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 benefits

arising therefrom” was clear that all benefits arising out of enhancement

in age must logically flow in favour of the employees.   

25

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

(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 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 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:

(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

those matters which came to be finally disposed of on 09.08.2017.

26

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

(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

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

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 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 4 (2004) 1 SCC 592

27

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

or Society.  All these orders were ex-parte orders.  Insofar 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 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 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  therefore,  deem it  appropriate to decide these Contempt

Petitions purely on this issue and, therefore, proceed to consider the merits and

28

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

whether there has been any violation of the directions issued by this Court on

09.08.2017.   

11. The raising of age of superannuation by amending Section 3 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 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 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 of all the developments

29

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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

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 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.

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 including the requirement

to have the concerned rules or regulations regarding the service conditions of

30

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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 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.   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 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

31

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

must be given the interpretation that the 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 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.

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 the employees even for the period that

the employees had not worked.  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

32

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh.  The division of assets and liabilities

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 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:  

“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 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  Department  of  Public Enterprises, Ministry of Industry, Government of India

33

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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. 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 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 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  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 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

34

         Cont..Pet..(Civil)1045-1055/2018 in CA No.10276 of 2017 etc. etc.           K. Ananda Rao v. Sri S.S. Rawat, IAS and Ors.  

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  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 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 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.  

...…………………...J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

....…………………..J. (M.R. Shah)

New Delhi, March 07, 2019.

35