This court dismissed a writ petition seeking extension of retirement age from 58 to 60 years for an employee of a registered society. Relying on Sureshchandra Singh vs Fertilizer Corporation of India, the court held that administrative instructions without-amended rules are not enforceable, dismissing the claim for continued service.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 1495 of 2019
and
W.M.P. No. 1667 of 2019
A.Pandiaraja ... Petitioner
-vs-
... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the clause 13.1 of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International School of Textiles and Management Rules, 2004 in so far as it prescribes 58 years as age of retirement and the consequential order of the Third Respondent in its Ref. No. SVPITM/DIR/Office Order 2018 dated 05.01.2019 by which the Petitioner has been directed to superannuate on 31.01.2019 and quash the same and consequently permit the Petitioner to continue in service till he attains 60 years of age in terms of Government of India O.M. No. 25012/8/98-Estt.(A) dated 30.05.1998 with all consequential and attendant benefits.
(Prayer amended vide order dated 26.02.2019 made in W.M.P No. 6314 of 2019 in W.P. No. 1495 of 2019)
For Petitioner : Mr. V.Vijay Shankar
For Respondent :
Mr. G.Baskaran Central Government Standing Counsel
O R D E R
Heard Mr. S.Mahesh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. G.Baskaran, Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the First to Third Respondents, and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the materials placed on record.
“13.1. No person shall ordinarily be retained in the service of the Institute beyond the age of 58 years. However, extension in a special case may be granted in accordance with the instructions of Government of India and for reasons to be recorded. The date of superannuation shall be the last date of month in which the person attained the age of 58 years. However, the employees whose date of birth is the first of the month shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last date of the proceeding month on attaining the age of 58 years.”
The Petitioner, who was an employee of the Second Respondent, was to retire from service on 31.12.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. He had then filed this Writ Petition on 18.01.2019 challenging the Order in Ref. No. SVPITM/DIR/ Office Order /2018 dated 05.01.2019 passed by the Third Respondent informing that he would be relieved from service on 31.01.2019 and had sought for consequential direction to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years in terms of O.M. No. 25012/8/98-Estt.(A) dated 30.05.1998 issued by the Government of India.
contrary to O.M. No. 25012/8/98-Estt.(A) dated 30.05.1998 issued by the Government of India, which has been ordered by this Court on 26.02.2019, and necessary amendments to that effect have been carried out in the relief sought in the Writ Petition.
“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 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 6-111992; 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.
representatives from various Ministries and are appointed by the President of India for a term of three years. In these circumstances we find that the Board of Directors themselves form a different class and cannot be compared with other employees in regard to conditions of service applicable to them. Allegation of discrimination is also raised by the appellants vis-à-vis employees of other corporations. Each public sector undertaking is an independent body/entity and is free to have its own service conditions as per law. However, all employees in FCIL who are working in its various units and divisions retire at the age of fifty-eight as per the relevant rules; and that even the future employees will retire at the age of fifty-eight. We also find that the employees of different corporations could not be treated alike since every corporation will have to take into account its separate circumstances so as to formulate its policy and consequently, the argument that there is discrimination of appellants vis-à-vis employees of other corporations also cannot be accepted. Thus, the appellants have failed on all grounds. The appeals stand dismissed.”
In view of the aforesaid legal position, it is not possible to grant any of the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition.
In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Maya
To
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International School of Textiles and Management Avinashhi Road, Peelamedu Coimbatore – 641 004.
+2cc to Mr. G.Baskaran (CGSC), Advocate, S.R.No.16480 +1cc to Mr. V.Vijay Shankar, Advocate, S.R.No.16886
W.P. No. 1495 of 2019
PL(CO) CT 15/06/2022
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim an extension of retirement age from 58 to 60 years contrary to the corporation's specific rules.
Whether the failure to amend the rules to reflect the Government of India Office Memorandum constitutes an enforceable right under Article 226.
Whether the Supreme Court's ruling in Sureshchandra Singh precludes the extension of retirement age for employees of public sector undertakings without rule amendments.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sureshchandra Singh vs Fertilizer Corporation of India LimitedRelied on¶34
Sureshchandra Singh -vs- Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited [(2004) 1 SCC 592] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Pandiaraja
Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Textiles
Chairman/ Board of Governors, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International School of Textiles and Management
Director, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International School of Textiles and Management
P.D. Audiokesavalu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
