DHARAM SINGH DABAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of CMs. 11568/98 and 1119/99 in CWP.No. 6152/98.

(2.) The application CM. 11568/98 lias been filed by the petitioner against Respondent No. 3-The Delhi Stale Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter to he called as Bank"), of which petitioner is an employee. He was appointed as Supervisor in the said Bank w.e.f. 1.6.67 and was confirmed w.e.f. 1.1.70. He was promoted to the post of Field Supervisor (A.O.11) on ,21.12.90 and was again promoted to the post of Manager on 18.9.97. The age of retirement of the petitioner is 58 years. However, what led the petitioner to file the present application was issuance of Office Memorandum No. 25012/2/97-Estt(A), dated 13.5.98 of Department of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training regarding increase of retirement age of Government servants from service from 58 years to 60 years. Petitioner claims that the said notification is applicable to the employees of bank also and, therefore, the retirement age of petitioner stands extended to 60 years. The petitioner states that the Reserve Bank of India, NABARD, UCO Bank and Canara Bank have enhanced the age of retirement of their employees from 58 to 60 years in June, 1998 following the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 13.5.98. Even District Cooperative Central Bank in Madhya Pradesh has also enhanced the age of retirement of its employees from 58 to 60 years in July, 1998. However, Respondent-Bank has not done so far and instead petitioner received a letter dated 31.10.98 from the Bank informing him that he would attain the age of retirement i.e. 58 years on 7.11.98 and consequently he would stand retired w.e.f. 30.11.98. Petitioner made representation against the same. However, the Bank did not concede. Petitioner accordingly filed present writ petition on 27.11.98. Show cause notice was issued in the writ petition and in CM. 11568/98 vide order dated 30.11.98. Ex-pare order was passed directing that respondents shall not give effect to the impugned order dated 31.10.98 retiring the petitioner after completition of 58 years of age till the next date of hearing. This order was extended from time to time. The respondents filed counter-affidavit to the petition and also reply to the CM. 11568/98. Respondent-Bank has also filed CM. 1119/99 for vacation of interim Order dated 30.11.98. Both these applications were heard together. As mentioned above, the case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to work till he attains the age of 60 years.

(3.) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner argued that the said Office Memorandum was applicable in the case of Respondent-Bank also and it was incumbent upon the Respondent-Bank to make amendment in the Recruitment Rules by increasing the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. In this connection, he referred to communication No.F.2/64/98/S-l. dated 27.5.98 from Govt. of NCT of Delhi addressed to All Private Secretaries/Secretaries/Spl.Secretaries/Head of Department/Local Bodies/Public Undertakings/Autonomous Organisations/Govt. of NCT of Delhi/Delhi/New Delhi and alongwith the said communication Office Memorandum dated 13.5.98 is forwarded for compliance and further necessary action in the matter. Subject of the said letter deals with Amendment in Fundamental Rule-56 regarding increase in the retirement age of Govt. Servant from service from 58 years to 60 years. It is submitted by learned senior counsel that since the letter is addressed to all Local Bodies/Public Undertaking/Autonomous Organisations, Respondent-Bank is also covered. If Respondent-Bank does not amend its rules relating to retirement age by increasing the same from 58 years to 60 years, Respondent -Bank cannot take advantage of its own wrong. Mr. Rohtagi also referred to and produced the copy of the judgment dated 11.8.98 of the Calcutta High Court in CWP.No.11531198 in the case entitled Ravi Prasad Chaurasia Vs. M/s. National Project Construction Corporation Ltd. wherein direction was given by the Calcutta High Court to the Respondent-Corporation to take immediate steps to comply with the directions contained in Office Memorandum dated 13.5.98 regarding amendment of its rule for the purpose of enhancement of the age of retirement of its employees. In the said case Union of India had supported the writ petitioner's case. However, Respondent-Corporation had argued that Office Memorandum dated 13.5.98 gave discretion to the Public Sector Enterprises to amend their rules as per the decision of Central Government in the manner they thought best and particularly in case where concerned Public Sector Enterprises had its own rules and regulations which were specific to its employees. This contention of the Respondent-Corporation was not accepted and the High Court gave the mandate, as noticed above, by making following observations: