VIMLA GHOSH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 308.2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissing O.A. No.4069/2011 filed by her, praying inter alia that the policy decision taken by the respondent no.1/Union of India and the respondent no.2/National Cadet Corps (NCC) whereunder the age of superannuation of NCC Girl Cadet Instructors had been declared as 55 years, be declared as arbitrary and discriminatory and further, for directions to the respondent nos.1 & 2 to formulate Guidelines regarding the age of superannuation of Girl Cadet Instructors at par with similarly placed persons, by enhancing the same to 60 years.

(2.) The present case had a chequered history. On 29.05.1969, the petitioner had joined NCC as a Girl Cadet Instructor (in short, GCI). On 08.11975, she was appointed as a part time Officer and she was made permanent on the said post on 24.01.1981. On 204.1994, the petitioner was promoted as an Under Officer Instructor. In the year 1996, the Fifth Pay Commission proposed enhancement of the age of superannuation of the GCI's from 52 years to 55 years which was partly implemented by the respondent no.1/Union of India by enhancing the age of superannuation of GCI's from 52 years to 54 years. Subsequently, on 19.09.2000, the age of superannuation of the GCI's was enhanced from 54 years to 55 years. On 30.09.2001, on attaining the age of 55 years, the petitioner retired from the subject post.

(3.) Two days before her superannuation, on 28.09.2001, the petitioner filed OA No.2596/2001 before the Tribunal, raising a grievance about her age of superannuation and praying inter alia for enhancing the age of superannuation from 55 years to 57 years. Vide order dated 28.09.2001, the Tribunal disposed of the captioned OA with directions issued to the respondents to consider the averments made by the petitioner in the said OA as a representation and decide the same. The respondents complied with the said order and rejected the petitioner's representation vide order dated 11.01.2002. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioner filed a second Original Application before the Tribunal in May, 2003, registered as OA No.1636/200 The said application was partly allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.04.2004 and as regards the issue raised by the petitioner with regard to enhancement of the age of superannuation, liberty was granted to her to file a separate OA in accordance with law.