CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA OFFICERS AND SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER Vs. CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the Cement Corporation of India Officers and Supervisors Association and the Cement and Khadan Karmachari Union (INTUC), Unit of Cement Corporation of India (for short 'the CCI'), Cement Factory at Mandhar, Raipur seeking issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the circular dated 03.04.2001 together with the decision/amendment to reduce the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years as also for quashing the circular dated 09.04.2001 issuing instructions in respect of application of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'the VRS Scheme'). Petitioners have also prayed for a direction to restrain the respondents from retiring the officers and employees of CCI, Cement Factory, Mandhar, District Raipur pursuant to the circular dated 03.04.2001 and to allow them to continue their service till they attain the age of 60 years subject to decision on their application for voluntary retirement under the VRS Scheme, 2001.

(2.) The petitioners are the association and union of the officers and other employees working in the Cement Factory at Mandhar, Raipur owned by the CCI. They have called in question the decision of the respondents to reduce the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years on the ground that the said decision is arbitrary and mala fide.

(3.) It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that in the year 1998 itself, a decision was taken to enhance the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years in implementation of decision taken by the Central Government at that point of time. Without there being any substantial change in the financial condition of the respondent company and after introduction of the VRS Scheme, the impugned decision has been taken to deprive them of the benefit of VRS Scheme. At the time of impugned decision, VRS applications of many of the members of the petitioners' association were pending, therefore, the decision is mala fide and adverse to the interest of the members of the petitioners' association.