Once Parity is Statutorily Guaranteed, Government Cannot Withdraw Benefits Through Executive Memos: Andhra Pradesh High Court

“Statutory Rules Trump Circulars”, In a decisive ruling Andhra Pradesh High Court held that employees of the Mahatma Jyothiba Phule Andhra Pradesh Backward Class Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (MJPAPBCWRIS) are entitled to continue in service until the age of 62, in line with Government employees.

Justice Nyapathy Vijay ruled that statutory service regulations guaranteeing parity in superannuation with Government employees cannot be overridden by mere circulars issued by the Finance Department.

“This Court has no hesitation in holding that where service conditions explicitly adopt Government rules, any amendment enhancing the age of superannuation applies automatically — the Respondents cannot retreat behind a departmental memo to deny that benefit,” Justice Vijay observed.

“Rule 14 Is Legislation by General Reference — Enhanced Retirement Age Automatically Applies”

At the heart of the legal dispute was Rule 14 of the MJPAPBCWRIS Service Regulations, 2018, which explicitly declares that service conditions including the age of superannuation “shall be on par with the respective Government employees”. The petitioners—employees of the State-controlled Society—approached the High Court when the Respondents attempted to retire them upon completing 60 years, even though the Government had enhanced the age of superannuation for State employees to 62 years through G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 31.01.2022.

The Respondents relied on Circular Memo dated 23.09.2022, which sought to restrict the benefit to Government employees alone. The Court was, however, unambiguous in rejecting that position, holding that statutory rules framed with Government approval cannot be nullified by executive instructions.

“Once Rule 14 provides that the age of superannuation shall be on par with Government employees, and the rule remains in force without amendment, there is no scope for denying that benefit through a circular,” the Court held.

Justice Vijay further remarked that Rule 14 constitutes legislation by reference, not by incorporation, making it dynamic and self-updating in nature. “It is presumed that any amendment in the Government rules, including superannuation age, would flow into the Service Regulations unless expressly excluded by amendment,” he said.

“Government Cannot Deny What It Has Already Approved” — Consent Argument Rejected

The Respondent-State sought to defend the denial of benefits by arguing that fresh consent of the Government was required to extend the higher age of retirement to employees of the Society. The Court, however, found this line of reasoning legally unsustainable.

“There is a fundamental distinction between rules framed by a Corporation through its bye-laws and those framed as statutory service conditions with Government approval. The latter bind both employer and employee unless altered through a proper legal process,” the Court held.

Referring to Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer (2005) 13 SCC 300, the Court recalled the principle that where parity clauses exist in service regulations, benefits flowing from changes in the Government’s rules apply unless the parity rule itself is amended.

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that where parity clauses exist, administrative directions issued by the Government—however emphatic—cannot override the Regulation unless it is properly amended,” the Court said.

“Circular Memo Dated 23.09.2022 is Not Binding on Statutory Regulations” — High Court Sets Aside Attempt to Exclude Society Employees

The Finance Department Circular sought to exclude employees of autonomous institutions and Societies from the benefit of enhanced retirement age. The Court found this to be in direct conflict with the Service Regulations and, therefore, not legally enforceable.

“It would not be open to the State to issue a circular denying a benefit which stands statutorily conferred under Rule 14. An executive clarification cannot rewrite a statutory rule,” the Court stated.

“Petitioners Cannot Be Forced to Retire at 60 — They Shall Be Continued Till 62”

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petitions and declared the action of the Respondents in retiring the petitioners at 60 as illegal and contrary to Rule 14. The Court unequivocally ruled:

“The petitioners are entitled to continue in service till attaining the age of 62 years. The Circular Memo dated 23.09.2022, insofar as it seeks to exclude the petitioners from the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation, is set aside.”

In doing so, the Court affirmed the primacy of statutory service regulations framed with Government approval and reinforced the principle that executive orders cannot erode legally vested rights without proper amendment to the governing rule.

Date of Decision: 02 February 2026