JUDGMENT :

R.M. Dobhit, J.

This group of Appeals arises from the common judgment and order dated 9th September, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge in the above Special Civil Applications. All these Appeals raise identical issues in similar set of facts. The Appeals are, therefore, heard and decided by this common judgment.

2. The appellant before this Court is Gujarat State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, the Corporation"), a statutory corporation established under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act of 1951"). The respondent No. 1 in each appeal is the former employee of the Corporation who has been retired from service under Regulation 19 of the Gujarat State Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Regulations").

3. The Regulations are framed by the Corporation in exercise of powers conferred by Section 48 of the Act of 1951. The Regulations are thus statutory in nature. Regulation 19 thereof (hereinafter referred to as, "Regulation 19") provides for superannuation and retirement. The relevant part of Regulation 19 reads as under :

"An employee shall retire on his attaining the age of 58 years or on completion of 30 years of service whichever is earlier :

Provided that the Board may at its discretion retain an employee in service after completing 30 years of service or on attaining the age of 58 years by sanctioning from time to extension of such employee's employment for a period not exceeding one year at a time if such an employee is physically and mentally fit, and that such extension of service shall in no case be sanctioned beyond the age of 60 years :-

Provided further that the Board may after giving three months previous notice in writing require an employee to retire from the service on the date on which such an employee attains the age of 55 years or on completion of 30 years of service whichever is earlier or any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. An employee may, however, after giving at least three months' notice to writing to the Managing Director retire from service on the date on which he attains age of 55 years or on completion of 30 years of service whichever is earlier or on any other date to be specified in the notice.

Explanation I - xxx xxx xxx xxx

Explanation II - xxx xxx xxx xxx

4. It is not in dispute that in spite of Regulation 19, the employees of the Corporation were invariably retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years, i.e., in past in no case the employee of the Corporation was retired from service on his completing the service of 30 years before he attained the age of 58 years. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd proviso which empowers the Corporation to retire its employee on his attaining the age of 55 years by giving three months' notice was also never invoked. It was for the first time in case of the employees before us, the respondent No. 1 in the above Appeals, that Regulation 19 has been invoked to retire the concerned employee before he attained the age of 58 years either on his completing 30 years of service or on his attaining the age of 55 years. A group of 10 employees, on their completing 30 years of service or on their attaining the age of 55 years, was given notice of retirement on 4th June, 2004. On expiry of notice period, they were retired from service on 8th September, 2004. Similarly, another group of 13 employees was retired from service on 30th June, 2005 after giving them notice of retirement of three months.

5. It was the said action of the Corporation of retiring its employees before they attained the age of 58 years. which was subject-matter of challenge before the learned single Judge. The challenge was two-fold. First, the action of retiring the employees before they attained the age of 58 years was arbitrary and discriminatory in so far as such an action was never taken in past. Second, the concerned employees were re tired from service in exe