RAMAPADA SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ petitioner Rampada Sinha (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) has prayed the Court for issue of a writ of and/or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents each one of them, their agents, servants, subordinates and assigns to forthwith cancel, withdraw and/or rescind the purported notice dated October 8, 1986, and October 7, 1987, contained in Annexure 'C' and 'J' hereof and to refrain from giving any effect and/or further effect and/or taking any step for further steps in terms thereof and/or thereunder and to act in accordance with law,

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that as there was a steady decline of demand with consequential fall in production of Messrs. Sen Raleigh Industries of India Limited at Kanyapur and the said Company continued to incur losses, the management of the said Sen Raleigh Limited, along with all its associates and subsidiary unit, was taken over by the Central Government under the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 in the month of September, 1975, by an Ordinance promulgated by the President of India the undertakings of Sen Raleigh Limited were taken over by the Central Government under the Hind Cycles Limited and Sen Raleigh Limited (Nationalisation) Ordinance, 1980. The said Ordinance was replaced by the Hind Cycles Ltd. and Sen Raleigh Ltd. (Nationalisation) Act, 1980. The service condition of the employees of Sen Raleigh Ltd., whose services were transferred to and contained in the Cycle Corporation of India Ltd. (for short corporation), was protected by Section 13(1) of the same Act, by a Notification issued under Section 6 of the said Act the undertakings of Sen Raleigh Ltd. were transferred to and vested in the said corporation with effect from October 25, 1980.

(3.) The petitioner, who was undisputedly born on November 1, 1929, was appointed as Personnel Manager of the said Corporation on probation for a period of one year on April 20, 1982, His services were confirmed with effect from July 1, 1983 on successful completion of his probationary period. He was informed by the Secretary of the Corporation by the impugned letter dated October 8, 1986 that the date of his retirement falls on November 1, 1987 (obviously on his attaining 58 years of age). The petitioner had thereafter requested the Secretary of the Corporation by his letter dated October 16, 1986 for not giving effect to the aforesaid letter dated October 8, 1986 for the reasons stated therein. The Secretary of the Corporation in his reply thereto by his letter dated February 5, 1987 had informed the petitioner that Officers recruited by the Corporation are governed by the Rules of the Public Sector Undertakings where the retirement age is 58 years. The Petitioner had thereupon made a prayer to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation by his letter dated August 17, 1987 requesting him to quash the aforesaid letter of the Secretary dated February 5, 1987 and allow him (Petitioner) to continue in service. But his request was not acceded to. Hence the instant Writ Application.