H W PENDARKAR Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the order dated 6-12-1976 compulsorily retiring him from service and the order passed in appeal on 16-2-1977. The petitioner was working as a Superintending Engineer in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-1700 on the date when the impugned order was passed against him. The respondent is a statutory corporate body and the conditions of service of its employees, including the petitioner, are governed by the Employees Service Regulations framed by the respondent in exercise of powers under section 79 of the Indian Electricity Act of 1948. Notwithstanding that the ordinary retirement age of its employees, such as the petitioner is 58 years under Regulation No. 7 the respondent passed Resolution and orders being G.O. No. 78 dated 9-9-76 and No. 78 on 2-1-1976 deciding to compulsorily retire its servants at earlier age. Thus in the event of the employees being found to be below normal, the same were made liable to be compulsorily retired at the age of 50, while in the case of employees, whose service record was unsatisfactory, the same were made liable to be compulsorily retired at the age 55. The petitioners date of birth is 15-7-1926. He reached the age of 50 on or about 14th July, 1976. It appears that in terms of the G.O. under consideration, service records of the petitioner came to be examined by the concerned Review Committee in October 1976 and at the said committee it was decided that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired by giving three months notice in terms of the said G.O. The impugned notice was issued pursuant to the said decision in terms by the final dismissing authority. The petitioner preferred an appeal and as indicated earlier, his appeal also has been rejected .

(2.) Dr. Kulkarni, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, raised several contentions in support its petition. His first contention is that Regulation No. 17 enables an employee to remain in service till he reaches the age superannuation at 58. It is not permissible for the respondent Board to pass any Resolution or G.O. with regard to the conditions of service of its employees. According to Dr. Kulkarni, any such G.O. is bound to be void because of lack of authority to pass the same, and secondly, because of its being in conflict with Regulation No. 17 In our Judgment, dated 23rd June, (1978 in special Civil Application No. 5228 of 1976) we have considered this contention of Dr. Kulkarni with regard to the validity of the identical resolutions of the Electricity Board and we have overruled the same. This point does not require any further consideration in view of our judgment in that case.

(3.) Dr. Kulkarni also contended that in the case of Government servants identical provisions were made applicable by amendment of Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, but before the amendment of the said Rule the Government servants were given about five years notice. No such advance intimation of the proposal of the Electricity Board was given to the employees by the Board. Dr. Kulkarni, therefore, contends that the application of the newly introduced G.O. without reasonable notice of its promulgation is violative of the principles of natural justice. Identical point also was raised in the earlier Special Civil Application. We were not impressed with the same. We are unable to see any basis for insisting that five years notice or any resonable notice should be given to the employees before the scheme of compulsory retirement is introduced in their conditions of service. It is indisputable that conditions of service can always be altered. The question of observation of principles of natural justice really not arise in such a situation. All that is relevant is to find out whether the circumstance alleged are true or not and, secondly, whether the same within the purview of the said G.O. or not. Beyond that we are not in position to lay down a rule that any particular notice has to given to the employees of the Board to make such G.Os. effective against them.