Dismissed

Datta Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jul 2009CWP/10192/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a government notification setting age and cut-off criteria for compensation and re-employment of retrenched employees. The court upheld the notification as non-arbitrary and dismissed the writ petition because the petitioners did not meet the stipulated conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petition to modify the government notification allowing compensation for retrenched employees was dismissed.

Datta Ram and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 10192 of 2009

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 14.07.2009

¶4

Datta Ram and others

¶5

.... PETITIONERS

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and another

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

Present: Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.

¶13

The services of the petitioners, who were employees of the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation – respondent No.2 which was closed in the year 2002, were retrenched on 30.6.2002, after paying them retrenchment compensation, as stipulated under Section 25-O (8) of the Industrial Disputes Act. At that time, petitioner No.1 was 59 years of age, while petitioners No.2 and 3 were of the age of 56 years. Under the Government instructions dated 18.5.2001, some of the retrenched employees of the respondent Corporation were given appointment on 25% of the future vacancies in direct recruitment in Group C' and D' of the Government Departments and State Public Sector and Cooperative Sector Undertakings, by relaxing the age requirement upto the maximum age of 50

¶14

CWP No. 10192 of 2009

¶15

-2-

¶16

years for all categories. Since the petitioners were more than 50 years of age, they could not be considered for recruitment on the vacancies arising in the Government Departments. Thereafter, vide notification dated 21.6.2006 in supersession of the earlier policy dated 18.5.2001, the Government framed a new policy to appoint by way of adjustment the regular retrenched employees of the Boards/Corporations/Public Sector Undertakings/ Cooperative Federations etc. and Government Departments, who were retrenched during the period from 1.3.2000 to 1.3.2005, who were less than 55 years of age as on 18.5.2006 against the available vacancies of direct recruitment of Group C' and D' posts. Since the petitioners were more than 60 years of age as on 18.5.2006, therefore, they could not be given any benefit under the second policy also. Vide another notification dated 1.2.2007, the Government further liberalized the scheme for adjustment of Group A' and B' retrenched employees as well as for providing compensation to them, in the following manner :

¶17

(i) To grant a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the family of retrenched employees who had expired after retrenchment and who would otherwise have been eligible for adjustment on 18^th May, 2006 i.e. the date of application of the present policy of adjustment of retrenched employees.

¶18

(ii) To provide a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh each to those retrenched employees who were over 55 years of age and less than 58 years of age as on 18^th May, 2006.

¶19

It appears that the object of this subsequent notification was to adjust Group A' and B' retrenched employees as well as to provide compensation to

¶20

CWP No. 10192 of 2009

¶21

-3-

¶22

those employees, who could not get any benefit under the earlier policy. However, the petitioners do not fall in any of these two categories, as their age was more than 60 years as on 18.5.2006.

¶23

The petitioners have filed the instant petition for modifying the notification dated 1.2.2007 to the extent that the cut off date for the retrenched employees who were over 55 years and less than 58 years of age, should be fixed as 30.6.2002 i.e. the date of retrenchment. It is further prayed that the maximum age of 58 years, as mentioned in the notification, should be 60 years for Group `D' employees, which was the age of their superannuation. It is the case of the petitioners that if the age of 60 years is taken as on 30.6.2002, then they would be entitled for compenstion of Rs. 1.00 lakh each, under clause (ii) of the notification dated 1.2.2007.

¶24

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. The date of 18.5.2006, being the cut off date, fixed in the notification dated 1.2.2007, is not illegal and arbitrary. The fixing of age from 55 years to 58 years for the purpose of granting of compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh, under the notification dated 1.2.2007, also cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. There is no justification and reason for fixing the cut off date as 30.6.2002, when the policy was framed in the year 2006. The petitioners, who were 59 years and 56 years of age at the time of their retrenchment, were paid the retrenchment compensation. Now, under the notification dated 1.2.2007, they cannot be given any compensation on account of not adjusting them in the

¶25

CWP No. 10192 of 2009

¶26

-4-

¶27

employment. Even as per the Government instructions dated 18.5.2001, they were not eligible for recruitment, because at that time, their age was more than 50 years.

¶28

In view of the above, there is not merit in the instant petition

¶29

and the same is, hereby, dismissed.

¶30

July 14, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE

Datta Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Datta Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brij Pal Sharma Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dropti Bajaj Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Dr. Parminder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Shashi Bala Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Swaran Singh and Ors. Vs P.R.T.C. and Ors.