The government has the authority to make policy decisions regarding the retirement age of officers, and such decisions do not necessarily violate the rights of the employees.

( 1 ) WHETHER increasing the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years in the case of other officers whereas increasing the same to 59 years in the case of Brigadiers, is unconstitutional or not, is the question involved in these writ petitions.

( 2 ) THE fact of the matter, however, is being noticed from CW 2559/2000 Brig. K. S. Rao s case.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is working in the defence forces. The government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 13lh May 1998 issued decision of the Union of India to implement the recommendations made by the Fifth Central Pay Commission vide letter No. 25012/n/97- estt (A) of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) which made recommendations that the Central Pay Commission was constituted for revising the pay scale of the Central Government employees including the defence officers. Consequent upon acceptance of the recommendations made by the said commission, the Central Government issued a notification on 30th May 1998 and thereby Fundamental Rules were amended. Rule 56 of the fundamental Rules, 1963 was amended to the effect that every government servant shall retire from services on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. No rule made in terms of the proviso appended to Art 309 of the Constitution apply to personnel or under the provisions of the Army Act. In relation to the personnel of Armed Forces and the Central Para-Military Forces, a policy memorandum was issued, inter alia, stating:

"6. It has been also decided that the age of retirement of the personnel of the Armed forces and the Central Para-Military Forces, be enhanced by two years. Necessary orders and amendment to the respective rules, etc. will be issued by the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Home Affairs, as the case may be, in consultation with- Department of personnel and Training. "

( 4 ) THE said policy decision was communicated by a letter dated 30th May 1998 by the Director of Ministry of Defence to the Chief of Army Staff, the relevant portion whereof reads thus:

"i am directed to refer to para 6 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, (DOP and T) O. M. No. 25012 / 2 / 97 - Estt (A) dated 13. 5. 1998 and to say that the modalities of the implementation of orders regarding retirement age of Army personnel by two years are under active consideration of the Govt. and the orders on the same will be issued shortly. In the meantime, the President is pleased to defer the retirement of all Army personnel who are to retire on 31. 5. 98 and thereafter till final orders are issued except the following categories. (a) to (f)

(G) Lt Gen and equivalent of Armed Forces medical Services who have attained their stipulated age of retirement viz. 60 years. "

( 5 ) PURSUANT to or in furtherance of the said policy decision, rank-wise changes in retirement age of the officers were made which are as under:

( 6 ) ALLEGEDLY, a dispute which had arisen for allowing the officers of the rank of Lt. Generals and equivalent in Air Force and Navy to continue in service beyond the age of 60 years, was determined allegedly in terms of a decision taken in this regard.

( 7 ) IN a Division Bench decision of this court in Union of India v. Lt. Gen. R. C. Kochhar being LPA No. 520/99 decided on 17 February 2000, it was held:

"in our view on the good reasons, no interference is called for in the impugned decision of learned Single Judge: First being that on 13. 5. 1998 decision had already been taken that in the case of personnel of Armed forces and the Central Para Military Forces age of retirement stand enhanced by two years. While giving effect to the said decision by letter dated 30. 5. 1998 in the case of all armed force personnel, no reason is stated that why category of Lt. Generals and equivalents of Armed Forces were excluded; and secondly, even if there be any reason for excluding the category of Lt generals and equiva