Back
2000 Supreme(Gau) 33
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
W.A.Shishak, P.C.Phukan, JJ.
Manipur Retiring Govt Employees Association; N.Sarojini Devi; Oinam Yaima Singh; Lourembam Kamakhya Kumar Singh; Loitongbam Bormani Singh; Retiring G -Appellant
Versus
State of Manipur -Respondent
Writ Petition Nos 103,177,221,443 and 174 of 1999 and Civil Rule No. 772 of 1998
Decided On : 25-01-2000
I.Lalit Kumar Singh, Jagjit Singh, H.Tarun Kumar, T.Nandakumar Singh, R.S.Reisang, R.K.Nokulsana Singh, N.Kotishwar Singh, N.K.Singh
Legislation by referential incorporation and the requirement for a specific notification from the State Government to adopt amendments to the retirement age of government employees.
Headnote:
Retirement Age - State Government Employees - FR 56 (a), Manipur Service Law (1st Amendment) Rules, 1976, Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998 - The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Manipur retiring government employees seeking to raise the retirement age from 58 to 60 years. The court held that the Manipur Service Law (1st Amendment) Rules, 1976, which fixed the retirement age at 58 years, occupied the field and not FR 56 (a) as amended by the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998. The court referred to the principle of legislation by referential incorporation and concluded that the retirement age could not be raised to 60 years without a specific notification from the State Government adopting the amended FR 56 (a).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Manipur retiring government employees, sought a writ to prevent the State Government from retiring employees before they attain the age of sixty years, based on the amended FR 56 (a) raising the retirement age from 58 to 60 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the Manipur Service Law (1st Amendment) Rules, 1976, which fixed the retirement age at 58 years, occupied the field and not FR 56 (a) as amended by the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998.
Issues: The main issue was whether the retirement age of Manipur government employees could be raised to 60 years based on the amended FR 56 (a) without a specific notification from the State Government adopting the amendment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of legislation by referential incorporation and concluded that the retirement age could not be raised to 60 years without a specific notification from the State Government adopting the amended FR 56 (a).
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
members by name filed a writ petition praying for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Govt of Manipur not to retire the State Govt employees before they attain the age of sixty years by treating FR 56 as amended by Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998 raising the retirement age of Govt employees from fifty-eight to sixty years to be in force in the State of Manipur.
2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed in the Principal Seat at Guwahati and was registered as CR No. 6574 of 1998. On transfer to Imphal Bench, it was renumbered as WP (C) No. 103 of 1999. By an order dated 11.2.1999 passed therein, the learned Single Judge opined that the matter involved an important legal issue requiring consideration by a larger Bench. Then, as per order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice it was listed before the Division Bench.
3. The aforesaid WP (C) No. 103 of 1999 and also WP (C) Nos 177, 221, 443, 174 of 1999 and Civil Rule No. 772 of 1998 have arisen out of similar facts and involve common question of law and hence are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
4. The Writ Petition (C) No. 103 of 1999 was filed on 21.12.1998 when some of the petitioners were to attain the age of fifty eight years on 31st December, 1998, some on 31.01.1999 and some others on 28.02.1999. The petitioner Mr. Ibohal Singh was already served the order No. 451 dated 2.1.1.98 requiring him to retire wef 31.12.1998 on his attaining the age of fifty eight years on that date. The other petitioners were apprehending that similar orders would be served on them also. They formed an Association, namely, All Manipur Retiring Govt Employees Association with the object of pursuing the matter of application of FR 56 as amended by the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 1998 raising the retirement age of Govt employees from 58 to 60 years to the employees under the Govt of Manipur.
5. Another set of similarly situated Manipur Govt Employees formed another Association called, the Retiring Govt Employees Forum with similar object and filed Civil Rule No. 772 of 1998.
6. Similarly situated petitioners, seventeen in WP (C) No. 177 of 1999, three in WP (C) No. 221 of 1999 and one each in WP (C) No. 443 of 1999 and WP (C) 174 of 1999 filed the respective writ petitions with similar prayer.
7. Since in the above writ petitions, this Court refused to pass any interim order directing the State Govt not to retire its employees before they attain the age of sixty years, it is submitted at the Bar that the Govt orders retiring some of the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petitions along with the Govt orders retiring some others before the filing of these writ petitions ought to be set aside and quashed.
8. We have heard Dr. NK Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 103 of 1999, Mr. A. Jagjit Singh and Mr. Tarunkumar Haobam, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 443 of 1999, Mr. RK Nokulsana, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 221 of 1999, and Mr. N. Kotiswor Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 177 of 1999 and CR No. 772 of 1998, and Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 174 of 1999. We have also heard Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned Advocate General, Manipur for the State respondents and the learned Central Govt Standing Counsel for the respondent Union of India in the above writ petitions. We have further considered the written argument submitted by Mr. Tarunkumar Haobam, learned counsel for the petitioners and also the written argument submitted by Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned Advocate General, Manipur for the State respondent.
9. Manipur became a State on 21st January 1972. Till then Manipur was a Union Territory, and all the Central legislations/rules/regulations/orders etc governing the service conditions of the Govt employees including the Fundamental Rules, 1922 with FR 56 (a) therein were appl
