Back
2000 Supreme(Gau) 176
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
A.K.Patnaik, J.
Meghalaya Government Press Industrial Employees Association -Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya -Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 32 (SH) of 2000
Decided On : 12-05-2000
V.K.Jindal, R.Choudhary, G.S.Massar, B.K.Deb Roy, B.P.Marngar
Headnote:
Article 226 - Age of Retirement - FR 57(a) of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984 - The court discussed the implications of the notification dated 25.9.98 and 1.12.99, which amended the age of retirement of Govt servants working under the Govt of Meghalaya from 58 years to 60 years and then back to 58 years. The court also highlighted the powers of the Governor of Meghalaya under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to make rules regulating the conditions of service of Govt servants.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a notification reducing the age of retirement of Govt servants from 60 years to 58 years and mandamus to implement an earlier notification increasing the retirement age from 58 to 60 years. The petitioner argued that the decision to roll back the retirement age was influenced by extraneous considerations and had adverse consequences for the employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the impugned rule reducing the age of retirement was made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and did not violate any constitutional provision. The court held that the grounds of challenge to the rule were misconceived.
Issues: The key issue was whether the decision to roll back the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years was valid and whether it affected the legitimate expectations of Govt servants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be struck down on the grounds of non-application of mind, extraneous considerations, or adverse consequences for the employees. The court also highlighted the legislative character of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
2. The petitioner is an association of employees working under the Govt of Meghalaya in Meghalaya Govt Press and is registered as a Trade Union. The object of petitioner Association is to protect the interest of its members and more particularly the conditions of their service under the Govt of Meghalaya. Pursuant to a decision taken by the Cabinet of the Govt of Meghalaya, a notification dated 25.9.98 was issued by the Govt of Meghalaya, Finance (Establishment) Department. By the said notification dated 25.9.98, the Governor of Meghalaya in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling on that behalf amended FR 57 (a) of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984 so as to increase the age of retirement of Govt servants working under the Govt of Meghalaya from 58 years to 60 years. The said notification was followed up by an office memorandum dated 17.10.98 issued by the Govt of Meghalaya, Personnel & AR (A) Department, which provided, inter alia, that a Govt servant whose age of retirement currently was 58 years would retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he/she attained the age of 60 years. As a. result, all Govt servants working under the Govt of Meghalaya who were to retire at the age of 58 years after 25.9.98 continued in service and were to retire only at the age of 60 years. But this position changed when an office memorandum dated 1.12.99 was issued by the Govt of Meghalaya providing that every Govt servant whose date of retirement was currently 60 years would retire from service < on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he/she attained the age of 58 years. This was followed by a notification dated 22.12.99 of the Govt of Meghalaya, Finance (Establishment) Department, in which it was stated that in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him on that behalf, the Governor of Meghalaya has amended FR 57 (a) of the Meghalaya Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, 1984 so as to reduce the are of retirement of the Govt servants working under the Govt of Meghalaya from 60 years to 58 years. The aforesaid amendment of FR 57 (a) was to come into force with effect from 31.3.2000. It is this rolling back of the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years which has been challenged in this writ petition.
3. At the hearing, Mr. GS Massar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it will appear from the news in the 'North East Daily' dated 10.2.99, 'Apphira Daily News' dated 14.4.99, 'Mawphar News Paper' dated 23.3.2000, copies of which have been annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 29.3.2000 that the Govt of Meghalaya rolled back the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years on account of pressure from the Khasi Students Union and d NGO's. This would also be evident from the reply in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents and in particular para 4 thereof in which it has been admitted by the Govt that after considering views of the general public, NGOs and various Govt employees associations favouring lowering the age of retirement to 58 years, the Cabinet of the State Govt constituted a special task force to examine the implication of raising the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. According to Mr. Massar, therefor
