SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 607

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
S. K. Siddique, Petitioner
Versus
M.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another, Respondents.
Writ Petn. Civil No. 658 of 1987
Decided on 23-10-1990.
Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), Sch.2, Item 6 - Retirement age - Employee

Advocates:
AVADH BIHARI ROHTAGI, JITENDRA, S.K.AGNIHOTRI, S.K.Gambhir, TARA CHANDRA SHARMA

Employees who had originally joined service with a specific company were entitled to continue in service till attaining the age of 60 years, as interpreted from a previous judgment.

Headnote:

Superannuation - Service Transfer - Age of Retirement

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed that his retirement at the age of 58 from the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was illegal, as the age of superannuation in the service of the corporation was 60 years.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that employees who had originally joined service with the Central Provinces Transport Services Limited were entitled to remain in service till attaining the age of 60 years, as held in a previous judgment. However, the petitioner did not belong to that category of employees and his retirement at 58 was upheld as legal.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's retirement at the age of 58 from the corporation was legal, considering the age of superannuation for employees who had originally joined service with the company.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the interpretation from a previous judgment that employees who had joined service with the company were entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. Since the petitioner did not belong to that category, his retirement at 58 was upheld as legal.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the petitioner's retirement at the age of 58 was upheld as legal.

JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:— The petitioner joined service in the Transport Department of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh in September, 1960. On the formation of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation with effect from June 1, 1962 his services were transferred to the said corporation. He retired from service on completing the age of 58 years on June 30, 1987. In this writ petition the petitioner claims that the age of superannuation in the service of. the corporation was 60 years and as such his retirement at 58 was illegal.

2. We have today pronounced judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1731 of t986 (reported in AIR 1991 SC 276) S. P. Dubey v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another. We have held that all those employees of the corporation who had originally joined service with the Central Provinces Transport Services Limited (hereinafter called the Company) are entitled to remain in service till attaining the age of 60 years.

3. Prior to August 31, 1955, Transport service in the State of Madhya Pradesh was being run by the Company. The age of superannuation of the employees of the Company, except the Drivers, was 60 years. The company was purchased and taken over by the State of Madhya Pradesh on August 31, 1955. Thereafter the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was established by the State Government with effect from June 1, 1962 and the service of the employees including the petitioner were transferred to the said corporation. Some of the employees of the Corporation were those who had originally joined service with the company. In S. Dubeys case (AIR 1991 SC 276) (supra), we have held that all those employees who had joined service with the company are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. The petitioner does not belong to that category of employees. Re joined service with the State of Madhya Pradesh in September, 1960, when the age of superannuation was 58 years and it continued to be the same till he retired. His case is, therefore, distinguishable from that of S. P. Dubeys case. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1991 SC 310

Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top