AMIT ROY CHOUDHARY Vs. METALLURGICAL & ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have challenged the Circular dated 31st October, 201 issued under the signature of General Manager (P) of respondent No. 1 Metallurgical and Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd. |in short MECON], whereby the age of superannuation in respect of all categories of its employees i.e. Board level employees and below Board level employees has been reduced from 60 years to 58 years. Petitioners also seek declaration that the aforesaid circular reducing the superannuation age is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

(2.) Petitioners' case is that they were appointed by the erstwhile Hindustan Steel Limited (in short HSL), a Government of India Undertakings and a company incorporated under the Companies Act consists of its units as Bhilai Steel Plant, Rourkella Steel Plant and Durgapur Steel Plant. In 1973. Government of India pursuant to its policy decision formed a new company, namely, Steel Authority of India Ltd. and it was made the holding company for the Central Government Companies functioning in the Steel Sector. A new company known as Metallurgical and Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd. (in short MECON) also came into existence during this time. The Central Engineering Design Bureau and other department of Hindustan Steel Ltd. were transferred and merged in the said MECON. Since New Company MECON having been formed as subsidiary of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (in short SAIL) it took over the business and other activities of the CEDB and all the employees of CEDB Unit of HSL were advised to join the new company i.e. MECON. It is stated that in view of the chain circumstances, the petitioners and other employees of HSL and CEDB were assured that the terms ad conditions of their services who jointed MECON would not be less favorable than that in the HSL and that the continuity of the service in the Company would be maintained. In 1978, by virtue of enactment of Public Sector Iron and Steel Companies (Restructuring) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1978, HSL was merged in SAIL and MECON became independent company under the direct administrative control of the Department of Steel, Government of India. Petitioners' further case is that as per the directive of the Department of Public Enterprises of the Government of India giving directions for raising the age of retirement/superannuation for the employee of all Central Government Public Sector Enterprises from 58 to 60 years. The Board of Directors of SAIL in its 248th meeting approved the amendment in Clause 9.5 of the Service Rules of the SAIL. The age of retirement for employees of SAIL was raised to 60 years. However, all of a sudden, the impugned circular was issued by respondent No. 1, MECON, whereby it unilaterally took a decision to roll back the age of superannuation of its employees from 60 years to 58 years vide circular dated 31st October, 2001.

(3.) The case of the respondent -MECON in the counter affidavit is that by virtue of aforementioned Act of 1978, the HSL stood dissolved and the service condition of MECON was made applicable to all its employees. It is stated that although in 1998 decision was taken for extending the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years but subsequent to the decision financial health of the company became precarious. The Government of India also came with the proposal for roll back the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years. After decision of the Government, the matter was reviewed by the Board of Director and it was decided to take up the matter with, the Government for roll back of the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years. The Government after considering the situation approved the decision and communicated it to the respondents. Respondent's further case is that while giving offer of appointment in MECON to the employees of HSL, it was made clear that all employees who joined MECON will be subject to the Service Rules and Regulations including the Conduct Rules as well as the Administrative Orders and the service conditions of MECON was made applicable to all the employees who joined MECON including the petitioner. It is further stated that petitioners after accepting offer of appointment took all benefits in pursuance to the service condition of MECON. They have also taken several promotions in terms with the Rules and Regulations of MECON and they never made any objection to the application of service condition of MECON.