Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Arun Kumar Dutta
RAMAPADA SINHA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondent
C. O. 9942 (W) Of 1987
Decided On : 12/22/1995
RETIREMENT AGE - DISCRIMINATION - PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING - SECTION 13(1) OF THE INDUSTRIES (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1951 - VALIDITY OF CLASSIFICATION - MALA FIDE - MANDAMUS - DELAY IN FILING WRIT PETITION - INTERIM ORDER - RESTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Sen Raleigh Industries of India Limited, was transferred to the Cycle Corporation of India Ltd. (Corporation) upon nationalisation. The petitioner's retirement age was fixed at 58 years, while other employees appointed before nationalisation were to retire at 60 years. The petitioner challenged the discrimination in retirement age, alleging that it was arbitrary and mala fide.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the classification of employees into two categories, one retiring at 58 years and the other at 60 years, was valid and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the fixation of 58 years as the retirement age for employees appointed after nationalisation was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court further held that the petitioner's allegation of mala fide was not supported by any evidence. The Court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to a writ of mandamus as he had not established any legal right to retire at 60 years.
Issues: 1. Whether the classification of employees into two categories, one retiring at 58 years and the other at 60 years, was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the fixation of 58 years as the retirement age for employees appointed after nationalisation was arbitrary or unreasonable. 3. Whether the petitioner's allegation of mala fide was supported by any evidence. 4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification of employees into two categories, one retiring at 58 years and the other at 60 years, was based on the date of their appointment, which was a reasonable basis for classification. 2. The fixation of 58 years as the retirement age for employees appointed after nationalisation was not arbitrary or unreasonable, as it was in line with the retirement age prevailing in the Public Sector Undertakings. 3. The petitioner's allegation of mala fide was not supported by any evidence. 4. The petitioner was not entitled to a writ of mandamus as he had not established any legal right to retire at 60 years.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Corporation was allowed to appropriate the petitioner's retiral benefit to the satisfaction of its lawful claims and to take steps for recovery of the balance, if any, according to law.
( 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,"further directing them not to give any effect or further effect and/or take any step or further step in terms thereof or seek to retire him (petitioner) before completion of the age of 60 years, along with the other reliefs prayed for therein, for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein. "
( 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.
( 4 ) IT is contended by the Writ petitioner that the action of the Corporation asking him (Petitioner) to retire on November 1, 1987 on his attaining the age of 58 years is discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and whimsical inasmuch as the other Officer of the Company had retired on attaining the age of 60 years. Instances of such Officers were sought to be given by the Petitioner by annexures 'g', 'h' and 'i' to the Writ Petition and in Paragraph 6 of his Supplemen
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
