VASANTRAO VISHNU MANGORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, a policy decision of the State of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution dated 2nd february, 1999 is challenged. By the said policy decision, the Government has decided that the government employees whose age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 to 60 years would retire at the age of 58 instead of 60 years.

(2.) THE grievance of the Petitioner is that such a decision is arbitrary, irrational and violative of articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It was also contended that no reasons have been given by the Respondent State as to why the age of superannuation was required to be reduced from 60 to 58 years. It was stated that earlier, the age of superannuation was fixed as 60 years on the basis of the recommendation of Vth Pay Commission and though the said question was not referred to any subsequent pay Commission, the action has been taken which is improper and illegal. Employees and citizens were never informed as to what weighed with the State government for reducing the age of superannuation from 60 to 58 years. The action, therefore, requires to be interfered with. Moreover, every citizen of the country and a resident of the State, like the petitioner, has right to know the reasons for taking such decision by the State Government and the State of maharashtra may be directed to file an affidavit so that the Court may be able to appreciate the grounds for coming to the conclusion whether the action is arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable.

(3.) IN our opinion, the point is finally concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court in K. Nagaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 551. Almost an identical situation had arisen in that case. The age of retirement was 58 years for the employees of the state of Andhra Pradesh. It was, however, reduced by an action of the State Government to 55 years. The said action was challenged, inter alia, on the ground that it was violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 311 of the Constitution. Dealing with the question and observing that it was a policy decision, Their lordships of the Apex Court observed;