AP retirement age hike will not touch Telangana staff

Hyderabad: The High Court has declared that the enhan-ced age of retirement effected by the AP government would not be applicable to employees in Telangana state.

The AP government had amended the AP Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannua-tion) Act, 1984,  increasing the age of superannuation of state government employees from 58 to 60 years on June 27, 2014.

A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Ramesh Rangana-than and Justice Sha-meem Akhter, while dismissing a petition, made it clear that  a law which would be made or amended by the AP or TS government will not automatically apply to both states.

Mr M. Sarveshwar Reddy, additional superintendent of police in TS, had moved the petition seeking a direction to the TS government to extend the age of superannuation as the Act 1984 was adapted by the AP government under Section 101 of the bifurcation Act.

Mr Vedula Venkata Ra-mana, senior counsel, contended that since the present state of AP has amended the Act with retrospective effect from June 2, 2014. As the 1984 Act had been adapted by the TS government, it would apply to TS also.

The bench pointed out that Section 101 of the bifurcation Act empowered the TS government to adapt or modify a law that was in force in undivided AP prior to June 2, 2014. It did not empower it to adapt a law made by the legislature of residuary state of AP.

The bench said the mere fact that the TS government  exercised its powers under Section 101 to make adaptations and modifications in the 1984 Act does not make it a state Act.

The bench said accepting the submission of counsel would have startling consequences. It bench declared that on or after June 2, 2014, the power to make laws applicable to its respective territories was conferred on the respective state legislatures.

The bench said it was satisfied that the provisions of the 1984 Act, as amended by the AP  Legislature, would not apply to Telangana state.

High Court cautions trial courts
The High Court has cautioned trial courts be cautious while dealing with cases of landed properties in general and especially in cases where senior citizens are involved.

 One P. Buchanna moved a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of his interim application by a trial court in Ranga Reddy district. He had sought setting aside an exparte decree passed in a property dispute. The trial court passed the decree as the petitioner failed to appear before the court.

The petitioner pleaded before the trial court that he had failed to take necessary steps owing to old age and age-related ailments as he was a senior citizen aged over 66 years.

Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar while allowing the petition pointed out that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not stipulate filing of a separate application. The judge said that the trial court ought to have been more liberal in its approach and should have considered the fact that landed property rights were at stake in the suit.

The judge observed that “the court below should therefore have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case.  Trite to state, courts are not expected to adopt a hidebound and pedantic approach while dealing with applications of this nature and the larger perspective must be kept in mind, balancing the interests of justice and those of the rival parties.”

The judge noted that “it is a settled principle of law that when valuable immovable property rights are involved, the court should ordinarily afford a hearing to both parties rather than taking a decision by hearing just one side.  The court below therefore ought not to have brushed aside the ostensibly adequate reason put forth by the petitioner while seeking such relief in the present case.

Condoning the delay and setting aside the exparte decree, the judge restored the civil suit by directing that trial court shall endeavor to expeditiously try and adjudicate the suit on merits and in accordance with law.