Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA
Nagaland Senior Govt. Employees Welfare Association & Others
Versus
The State of Nagaland & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4955 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 29786 of 2009)
Decided on : 06-07-2010
1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 592; (1985) 1 SCC 523 – Relied upon
(b) Administrative law – Presumption of constitutionality of enactment – enactments are presumed to be constitutional – Burden is on the person who challenges the constitutionality – Similarly, allegations of discrimination against governmental authorities must be specific – Action of governmental authorities must be presumed to be reasonable and in public interest – It is for the person assailing it to plead and prove to the contrary. (Para 32 to 37)
AIR 1959 SC 942; AIR 1968 SC 1; (1974 (4) SCC 415; AIR 1958 SC 731; (1964) 6 SCR 679; (1978) 2 SCC 1; (1988) 3 SCC 382 – Relied upon
(c) Section 3 (Amended) – Provision aims to create opportunities for employment and check unemployment, to combat unrest amongst educated unemployed youth and to ensure that they do not join underground movement – Having nexus with public interest – No unreasonableness or arbitrariness – Cannot reasonably be called into question (Para 41,
AIR 1983 SC 803; 1993 Suppl. (2) SCC 592; (1985) 1 SCC 523 – Relied upon
(d) Service law – Retirement – As per length of service – Allegation of discrimination – policy and provision common for all employees – No discrimination. (Para 46)
Facts of the case:
The Government of Nagaland by amendment to its employees service rules fixed age of retirement as 60 years or 35 years of service, whichever is earlier.
Challenge to the amendment, particularly length of service was negative by High Court.
Finding of the Court:
A provision which prescribes retiring the persons from public employment in the State of Nagaland on completion of 35 years’ service from the date of joining or until attaining the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier, does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or irrationality and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Result:
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment :-
R.M. Lodha, J.
Leave granted.
Introduction
2. A new State - State of Nagaland -was formed by the State of Nagaland Act, 1962 (for short, `the 1962 Act') which came into force on December 1, 1963 comprising the territories which immediately before the appointed day were comprised in the Naga Hills - Tuensang Area of the State of Assam. Prior to the 1962 Act, Naga Hills-Tuensang Areas Act, 1957 was enacted by the Parliament by which certain changes were brought about with regard to the administration of the area viz., Naga Hills - Tuensang Area within the State of Assam. The pay structure applicable to civil servants of Assam was made applicable to the civil servants of the Naga Hills-Tuensang Area and as regards the service conditions including the age of superannuation, the Central Government Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules were made applicable to them. After creation of the State of Nagaland, the conditions of service of the State Government employees continued to be governed by the same Rules. In 1990, the superannuation age of all the State Government employees other than grade-IV employees was raised from 55 years to 58 years.
The 1991 Act
3. In 1991, Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment Act, 1991 (for short, `the 1991 Act') was enacted by the State Legislature which came into force on June 18, 1991. Section 3 thereof provided for retirement from public employment. It states :
"S.-3. Retirement from public employment: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule or orders for the time being in force, a person in public employment shall hold office for a term of thirty-three years from the date of his joining public employment or until he attains the age of fifty-seven years whichever is earlier :
Provided that in special circumstances, a person under public employment may be granted extension by the State Government upto a maximum of one year;
Provided further that the Government may have the cases of all persons under public employment screened from time to time to determine their suitability for continuation in public employment after the attainment of the age of fifty years.
(2) All persons under public employment shall retire on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-seven years or on completion of thirty-three years of public employment whichever is earlier.
(3) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(4) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(5) xxx xxx xxx xxx"
As a matter of fact, the 1991 Act replaced the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment Ordinance, 1991.
Challenge to Section 3 (1991 Act)
4. The Confederation of All Nagaland State Service Employees Association (`the Confederation', for short) challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3 which provided for retirement from public employment on completion of 33 years from the date of joining employment or until the age of 57 years, whichever is earlier by filing a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court. The main grounds of challenge were :
(i) that retirement of the government employees at the age of 57 is arbitrary and (ii) that classification of the government employees in two groups viz., one group of the government employees who are to retire on completion of 33 years service before attaining the age of 57 and the other group retiring at the age of 57 and having not completed 33 years of service is not permissible since retirement of government employees must be attributable to the age and not the length of tenure of service.
5. The Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court vide judgment dated January 18, 1993 upheld the reduction of retirement age from 58 to 57 years but struck down part of Section 3 of 1991 Act which prescribed the retirement from service on completion of 33 years of service. But no consequential relief was granted to the employees.
6. The Confederation challenged the order of the Single Judge dated January 18, 1993 by way of an intra court appeal insofar as consequential reliefs were denied to the emp
Yeshwant Singh Kothari v. State Bank of Indore
K. Nagaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh
A.C. Aggarwal v. Mst. Ram Kali
The Amalgamated Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kartar Singh
Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.