IMPORTANT POINT
There is no discretion with Management for extending the age of retirement of individual employee.

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Leave granted.

2. Heard Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Subhrajyoti Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 26.7.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.51499 of 2005. The appellant filed the writ petition before the High Court with the following prayer:

(i)a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.8.2004 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure 4) so far it relates to the petitioner only;

(ii)a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till 31.7.2007 the due date of superannuation age;

(iii)Any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that there is no discretion to the Management for extending the age of retirement of individual employee, and therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court has no application. Our attention was also drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. vs. The Workmen, reported in AIR 1967 SC 948. In our opinion, the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition since there is no discretion to the Management for extending the age of retirement of individual employee.

5. Our attention was also drawn to Rule 2 of U.P. State Electricity Board (Employees Retirement) Regulations, 1975, which deals with date of compulsory retirement and reads thus:

"2. Date of compulsory retirement:

(a) Notwithstanding any rule or oder or practice hitherto followed and except as provided otherwise in other clauses of this Regulation, the date of compulsory retirement of a Boards employee other than a Boards employee in inferior service, is the date on which he attains age of 58 years. He may be retained in service after the age of compulsory retirement with the previous sanction of the Board in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances.

...................................................."

6. Dr. Padia submitted that the High Court has erred in not appreciating that the guidelines provided under the Regulations of 1975 particularly Regulation 2(a) for the Board did not provide that as to when an employee should retire at the age of 60 years and when he can continue beyond 60 years and for all practical purposes, there being no difference in the powers of the Board to continue an employee up to 60 years or up to any age whatsoever without fixing even the maximum age and such a provision is totally hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

7. The said Rule gives discretion to the Management to retain the employee in service after the age of compulsory retirement with the previous sanction of the Board in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances. There is no discretion to the management for extending the age of retirement of individual employee.

8. Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, also raised another contention that the High Court has failed to consider that in accordance with Section 23(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, passed by the U.P. Legislature, when all the interests, rights and liabilities of the Board vested in the State Government and nothing was left with State Electricity Board, then all its officers and employees also became the officers and employees of the State Government because on any other interpretation the situation will be totally incongruous as Board will only have employer without any funds and properties and without any function. To a query put by us as to whether this point was raised before the High Court, Dr. Padia drew our atte