BRAITHWAITE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is at the behest of the Braithwaite Officers' Association representing the case of the persons who are still in employment. It relates to the rolling back of age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years after it was raised from 58 years to 60 years in 1998. Facts:

(2.) The petitioner's case in short is that the age of retirement in Braithwaite was 60 years. The Braithwaite and Company Ltd. (BCL) is a unit of Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. (BBUNL). However, the age of retirement of those officers appointed prior to 10/10/1984 would remain 60 years while those appointed after 10/10/1984 would be 58 years as is apparent from the clarification in Annexure "P-2". By a letter dated 19/05/1998 (Annexure "P-3") issued by the Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Industry, age of retirement below board level employees was raised from 58 years to 60 years. Subsequently, by a notice dated 23/04/2001 (Annexure "P- 4"), it was notified that pursuant to a review of the policy of the Government of India by a Memo dated 1/01/2001, the Board of Directors of BCL, was authorised to restore the retirement of sick Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) to 58 years subject to the approval of the Government of India as such the Board had decided to roll back the age of retirement at 58 years. This action has been challenged by the Respondents on various grounds. By reason of such decision, the members of the association would lose two years of service. On the other hand, some of the officers had enjoyed the full term of 60 years and had retired. The company had been registered with Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). A package for revival of BCL was approved by BIFR. in the said package, the approved staff strength was 3,402. This has come down to 2,357 as on 31/03/2001 by reason of retirement or death of some of the employees. It is further alleged that for rolling down the age, no permission was sought for from BIFR. On the other hand, a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) was floated by BBUNL. Pursuant thereto, many of the officers were allowed VRS on the basis of retirement age as on 60 years. Thus, the petitioner has been discriminated upon. Submission on behalf of the petitioner

(3.) Mr. Jayanta Mitra, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the decision, even if a policy decision, can be interfered with, within the parameters laid down in the ratio decided in the decisions cited by him. He has spelt out the extent to which the Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere. Relying on those decisions, having regard to the facts and circumstances pointed out by him, he pointed out that the present case is a fit one where the Court should interfere. The present decision suffers from all the infirmities recognised in these decisions. In support of his contention he relied upon the decisions in Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 ,SC 1628 : 1979 (3) SCC 489 : 1979-II-LLJ-217; Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa AIR 1991 SC 1902 : 1991 (4) SCC 54; Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. AIR 1991 SC 537; Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corpn. AIR 2001 SC 3887 : 2001 (8) SCC 491, Tyre Corpn. of India Officers' Association v. Union of India 2001 (3) Cal HN 774 and Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Metropolitan Borough of Tameside, 1976 3 All ER 665. On the above principle, Mr. Mitra had dealt with the facts of this case and pointed out from various documents that the decision taken is unreasonable, We shall discuss in detail the various points with regard to unreasonableness having regard to various documents at appropriate stage. Submission on behalf of the Respondents