Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 527
High Court Of Calcutta
D. K. SETH
CALCUTTA PORT SHRAMIK UNION - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALCUTTA PORT - Respondent
W. P. 3394 Of 2000
Decided On : 08/09/2002
Jayanta Mitra, SUNDARANANDA PAL
The court will not interfere with a policy decision taken for economic reasons unless it is mala fide, arbitrary, or unreasonable.
Headnote:
RETIREMENT AGE - CALCUTTA PORT TRUST - CALCUTTA PORT TRUST ACT, 1908 - FUNDAMENTAL RULES - POLICY DECISION - ECONOMIC RATIONALITY - COURT'S POWER TO INTERFERE - The Calcutta Port Trust's decision to roll back the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years was challenged on various grounds, including the competence of the board to adopt such a resolution, the validity of the resolution in light of the Fundamental Rules, and the economic rationality of the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Calcutta Port Trust (CPT) had initially adopted the Fundamental Rules of the Government of India, including Rule 56 which provided for a retirement age of 55 years for Class I, II, and III employees, and 60 years for Class IV employees. In 1963, the retirement age for Class I, II, and III employees was raised to 58 years to maintain parity with the central government's decision. In 1972, the retirement age for Class IV employees was reduced from 60 years to 58 years. In 1998, the Fundamental Rules were amended to provide for a retirement age of 60 years for government servants. The CPT adopted this amendment through a resolution in 1998, raising the retirement age for all employees to 60 years. However, in 2000, the Ministry of Surface Transport directed the CPT to roll back the retirement age to 58 years for economic reasons. The CPT adopted a resolution to this effect, which was approved by the Ministry of Surface Transport.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the CPT had the competence to adopt the resolution rolling back the retirement age, as it had the power to frame its own service rules under Section 31 of the Calcutta Port Trust Act, 1908. The court also held that the resolution was not invalid merely because it deviated from the Fundamental Rules, as the CPT had the power to adopt its own rules or deviate from the Fundamental Rules subject to the approval of the government. The court further held that the decision to roll back the retirement age was a policy decision taken for economic reasons, and that the court would not interfere with such a decision unless it was mala fide, arbitrary, or unreasonable. The court found that there was no evidence of mala fides or arbitrariness, and that the decision was based on economic rationality.
Issues: 1. Whether the CPT had the competence to adopt a resolution rolling back the retirement age. 2. Whether the resolution was invalid because it deviated from the Fundamental Rules. 3. Whether the decision to roll back the retirement age was a policy decision taken for economic reasons. 4. Whether the court could interfere with such a decision.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The CPT had the competence to adopt the resolution rolling back the retirement age, as it had the power to frame its own service rules under Section 31 of the Calcutta Port Trust Act, 1908. 2. The resolution was not invalid merely because it deviated from the Fundamental Rules, as the CPT had the power to adopt its own rules or deviate from the Fundamental Rules subject to the approval of the government. 3. The decision to roll back the retirement age was a policy decision taken for economic reasons, and the court would not interfere with such a decision unless it was mala fide, arbitrary, or unreasonable. 4. There was no evidence of mala fides or arbitrariness, and the decision was based on economic rationality.
Final Decision: The writ petition challenging the CPT's decision to roll back the retirement age was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition, the calcutta port shramik union represented by its general secretary, parbati das and calcutta port officers' federation represented by its general secretary, dipankar ghosh had challenged the decision of the calcutta port trust to roll back the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years. The facts of the case briefly are that originally the retirement age of class i, class ii and class iii employees of the calcutta port trust (cpt) was 55 years. Whereas the retirement age of class iv employees was 60 years. By a resolution dated september 30, 1963, the retirement age of the class i, class ii and class iii employees were raised from 55 years to 58 years in order to maintain parity with the decision taken by the central government in respect of its employees at the material point of time. By a resolution dated october 30, 1972, the retirement age of class iv employees was reduced from 60 years to 58 years. The fundamental rules was amended by fundamental (amendment) rules, 1998, amending rule 56 by a notification dated may 13, 1998 providing for retirement age on the attainment of 60 years by a government servant. The calcutta port trust by a resolution dated december 12, 1921 had adopted the fundamental rules of the government of india except rule 86. Subsequently, by a resolution dated march 29, 1954, cpt decided that the amendments to the fundamental and supplementary rules of central government as may be made from time to time, will be automatically applicable to cpt employees as those can be adopted through the port trust requirement and are not inconsistent of the provision of the calcutta port act. Thus, in an agenda item no. 14 in may 1988, it was pointed out that the retirement age be enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. Accordingly, by a resolution no. 62 amendments of rule 56 was adopted by cpt and it was so published by an administrative notice issued on may 29, 1998 after the same was approved by the trustees. Subsequently, in a note dated september 7, 2000 addressed to the chairman of all major port trusts, the director, ministry of surface transport had pointed out the decision relating to reduction of retirement age of port employees from 60 years to 58 years and freezing of recruitment against the resultant vacancy on certain economic reasons spelt out therein. By a further letter dated september 19, 2000, the port trust was asked to expedite the rolling back. Prior to the enhancement of retirement age in 1998, a settlement of wage revision and retirement benefits and conditions of service of port and dock workers at the major ports were entered into by cpt and its workers with effect from january 1, 1997. Clause 35 and 36 of the said settlement provided respectively for adoption of steps for increasing productivity and resource generation for augmenting financial viability together with an idea of customer satisfaction and introduction of new enterprise culture in major ports on the one hand and also to retain and protect the existing benefits but that too having regard to the improvement of productivity. A note was prepared by the cpt with regard to such situation where economic reason was highlighted to support rolling back of the retirement age. In the mean time, in a letter dated april 17, 2000, ministry of surface transport again reminded the cpt for rolling back of retirement age. Through a letter dated august 4, 2000, the ministry of surface transport again requested cpt to inform the reason for delay in adopting the rolling back of retirement age. Thereafter, in a resolution no. 128 dated august 25, 2000 subject to sanction of the government, the board had adopted rolling back of retirement age from 60 years to 58 years with effect from december 31, 2000 of all employees except in respect of class iv employees recruited prior to october 30, 1972. This resolution received sanction from the ministry of surface transport through a letter dated october 18, 2000. It is
