AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.11.2001 (Annexure 16, 17 and 18 to he writ petition) by which the petitioners have been retired from the service of the British India Corporation at the age of 58 years and the orders of the same date copies of which are Annexure 11 and 12 to the writ petition.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioners 1 and 2 were initially appointed in temporary capacity for two months in March, 1969 in the service of Cawnpore Woolen Mills Branch of British India Corporation vide Annexure1 to the writ petition. The petitioner No. 3 was appointed on probation for six months w.e.f. 25.11.1970 under the same Corporation vide Annexure2 to the writ petition. It is alleged in Paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the age of retirement of the petitioners is 60 years according to the rules and regulations of the Company. In Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the writ petition the petitioners have referred to orders of other employees of the Company who were retired at the age of 60 years vide Annexures3 to 6 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also referred to other documents to show that the retirement age of the employees of the Company is 60 years except of those appointed on 31.4.1954 vide Annexure 14 and 15 to the writ petition. By the impugned order it is stated that the employees of the Company shall be retired at the age of 58 years and not 60 years purporting to act in respect of some directive referring to the roll back to the age of retirement vide Annexure 11 and 12 to the writ petition.
In Paragraph 17 of the writ petition it is stated that vide order dated 14.1.2002 which annexes a decision of the Government of India. Ministry of Textiles dated 10.1.2001 the Scheme of roll back of the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years would be applicable only to those whose age of retirement earlier was enhanced from 58 years to 60 years vide Annexure 13 to the writ petition. The petitioner association made representations of the respondents stating that they should be retired at the age of 60 years vide Annexure 14 and 15 to the writ petition. However, the impugned orders have been passed stating that the petitioners have been retired at the age of 58 years.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 1. In Paragraph 2 (b) it is stated that the British India Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ''the Corporation'') was the holding company of several subsidiary companies whose names are mentioned in the said Paragraph. The shares of the Corporation were acquired by the Government of India by the British India Corporation (Acquisition of Shares) Act, 1981. Thereafter out of the 12 Mills of the Corporation all the Sugar Mills were sold away or have been wound up under the Companies Act. Three textile mills have been wound up and only two units of the Corporation namely Cawnpore Woolen Mills and New Egerton Woolen Mills at Dhariwal, Punjab are working with about 50% production. Prior to nationalization about 40,000 workers were employed in the Mill of the Corporation but they were reduced to 3500 workers. The Corporation itself has been declared as a sick unit vide order dated 9.10.1997 of the Appellate Authority, Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. The Board recommended that the Corporation be wound up. However, the Government of India decided to revive the Corporation and the winding up matter was referred to B.I.F.R. by this Court. The office of the Corporation is over staffed and 136 employees are still on the roll of the head office. The Government of India submitted a revival plan to B.I.F.R. for revival of the two units according to which the maximum employees in the head office should be kept as 56. The age of retirement of all the employees of the Corporation was 60 years before the acquisition in 1981. After nationalization the Government of India vide order dated 21.6.1996 fixed the age of retirement at 58 years which was adopted by the Company w.e.f. 28.8.1996. Certain officers were before retired at the age of 58 years'' vide Paragraph 2 (k) of the counter affidavit.
In Paragraph 2 (1) it is stated that when the IIIrd Pay Commission was implemented an option was sought for from the officers as to whether they would adopt the pay scale fixed by the IIIrd Pay Commission or they will continue to work under the old scale of pay and other terms and conditions. The petitioners gave their options, opting for the IIIrd Pay commission. True copies of the option letters are Annexure 1A, 1B and 1C to the counter affidavit. There are two categories of employees of the respondent company (1) officers and supervisors who are known as IDA pattern employees and (2) the rest. As regards nonIDA pattern employees their age of retirement is fixed by the Certified Standing Orders as 60 years, whereas the age of retirement of IDA pattern employees appointed before nationalization was 60 years. The Government of India revised the policy extending the age of retirement of officers and supervisors from 58 years to 60 years vide memo dated 19.5.1998. However, by memo dated 22.8.2001 the Government of India reduced the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years on the recommendation of Bureau of Public Enterprises. This policy was made applicable to all sick industries of the Government of India all over the country. True copy of the letter dated 22.8.2001 is Annexure2 to the counter affidavit. The Board of Directors of the Conjuration adopted the said policy decision in its meeting dated 10.9.2001 and made it effective from 1.11.2001 vied Annexure3 to the writ petition. The Corporation informed the Government of India that it has adopted the policy of roll back by letter dated 12.9.2001 vide Annexures4 and 5 to the writ petition. This policy of roll back has been implemented in both he units of the Corporation from 1.11.2001. In Paragraph 5 it is stated that Nirmal Singh and Lakhan Pal were retired before 1.11.2001. Sri R.P. Misra has retired at the age of 58 years. Sri S.K. Dixit retired on 30.10.2001 i.e., before 1.11.2001.
In the supplementary counter affidavit it is stated all the three petitioners were appointed as officers after 1981 i.e., after the nationalization and the age or retirement was fixed at 58 years by order dated 21.6.1996. AmiexureS.C.A1. All IDA pattern officers along with the petitioners have been retired at the age of 58 years after 21.8.1996.
On the facts and circumstances of the case we find no merit in this petition. The petitioners were appointed as clerks but thereafter they were selected and appointed as officers after nationalization and in their appointment letters the age of retirement has not been mentioned and instead it is stated that they will be governed by the rules and regulations as applicable to the officers of that category. The age of retirement was 58 years but it was enhanced in 1998 by the Government of India to 60 years. Subsequently, this was again rolled back by the policy decision dated 21.8.2001 to 58 years.
The policy decision of the Government of India was challenged in some petitions before this Court but those petitions were dismissed e.g.. I.T.I. Ltd., Nctini v. Union of India, 2002 (4) ESC 340; Krishna Sahai v. Union of India, 2002 (4) ESC 95, etc.
As regards the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners should be retired at the age of 60 years as mentioned in the petitioner''s appointment letters Annexure 1A to 1C, these letters were issued when the petitioners were appointed as clerk. Subsequently, these letters were superseded when the petitioners were appointed as officers, and the retirement age of officers has been rolled back to 58 years. In our opinion, the age of superannuation is a condition of service and that can be changed unilaterally vide State Bank of India v. S. Vijaya Kumar. 1990 (4) SCC 481. This Court cannot ordinarily interfere with in policy decision which is taken after consideration of various factors. There is no malafide in the decision of the respondent to roll back the age of superannuation.
The Petition is dismissed.