KRISHNA SAHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy raised in this writ petition is regarding the validity of the decision to roll back the age of retirement to 58 years.

(2.) The petitioner was Assistant Purchase Officer in M/s. Triveni Structurals Ltd. Allahabad (respondent No. 3) a company of which initially all the shares were held by the Government of India. The age of retirement of all the employees of respondent No. 3 from the very inception was 58 years. The Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Public Enterprises, New Delhi issued an Office Memorandum on 19.5.1998 that it had been decided to enhance the age of retirement of below Board level employees of Central Public Sector Enterprises whose age of retirement was currently 58 years to 60 years. The Board of Directors of respondent No. 3 accordingly passed a resolution on 26.5.1998 raising the age of retirement of below Board level employees from 58 years to 60 years. A circular was thereafter issued by respondent No. 3 on 30.5.1998 and the age of retirement of all employees below Board level was raised to 60 years. Nearly two years after another office order was issued on 9.4.2001 by which the age of retirement was rolled back to 58 years and the service rules were also modified accordingly. The petitioner was served with an office order dated 3.2.2002 informing him that on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years he will be relieved from the services of the company with effect from 30.4.2002. The petitioner seeks quashing of the circular elated 9.4.2001 and the aforesaid office order dated 3.2.2002.

(3.) Sri Rudeshwari Prasad learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the office order dated 9.4.2001 issued by respondent No. 3 basically on two grounds. The first ground is that the office order has been issued contrary to the policy laid down by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India. The second ground is that the office order is discriminatory inasmuch as it has been applicable to Triveni Structurals Limited only and not to similar other companies of which Bharat Yantra Nigam Limited (respondent No. 2) is the holding company.