The decision to roll back the age of retirement did not violate any constitutional provision or statutory rule, and the age of superannuation could be reduced to 58 years for all categories of employees working in the Public Sector Undertakings.

( 1 ) THE challenge herein is to the roll-back of the age of retirement. The age of retirement of all the employees of Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the I. T. I.) from the very inception was 58 years. The Vth Pay Commission appointed by the Government of India recommended that the age of superannuation of the Central Government employees should be raised from 58 years to 60 years. Accepting the recommendation, the Government of India vide g. S. R. No. 248 (E), dated May 13, 1998, amended Fundamental Rules 56, by which the age of superannuation of the Central Government employees was raised to 60 years. As a sequel to the aforesaid decision, the Public Sector Undertakings under the control and supervision of Ministry of Heavy Industries and Department of Public Enterprises also raised the age of superannuation of their employees from 58 years to 60 years. The employees of the I. T. I. , other than the workmen, are governed by the CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). Rule 35 (2) (a) of the Rules, as it stood prior to 28. 5. 1998, provided that the age of superannuation shall be 58 years. The rule was amended by the corporate Personnel Policy Circular No. 444 dated 28. 5. 1998, and it provided that the age of superannuation for the employees of the company shall be 60 years and the amended rule will come into force w. e. f. 30. 5. 1998. Subsequently, Rule 35 (2) (a) was again amended by Corporate personnel Policy Circular No. 473 on 27. 3. 2002 and the age of superannuation was rolled back and was restored to 58 years. The petitioners seek quashing of the policy circular No. 473 dated 27. 3. 2002 and also the office orders issued by the Government of India on 22. 8. 2001 and 20. 11. 2001.

( 2 ) SRI R. K. Saxena and Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid Policy Circular No. 473 basically on three grounds. The first ground is that the amendment in Rule 35 has been made contrary to the policy laid down by the Ministry of Heavy industries and Public Enterprises, Government of India. The second ground is that the amendment was effected without consulting the officers association and recognised unions functioning in the company, which was mandatory under the policy of the Government. The third ground is that the amendment is discriminatory inasmuch as it has been made applicable only to below Board Level Employees while the age of superannuation of the Board Level employees still continues to be 60 years.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to refer to the relevant orders and circulars issued by the Government of India and the company in this regard.

( 4 ) THE Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of public Enterprises, issued an office memorandum on 9. 5. 2000, which is as under :

"office MEMORANDUM subject.--Age of retirement of employees of Public Sector Enterprises. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Departments O. M. No. 18 (6)/98-GM dated 19. 5. 1998 and No. 18/9/98-GM dated 21. 8. 1998 on the subject mentioned above and to say that there has been proposals for rolling back the age of retirement in the case of some sick/unviable p. S. Us, for which rehabilitation/ revival packages are under consideration. The procedure to be followed in such cases was considered and it has now been decided that in such cases the Board of the concerned company should review its decision on the raising of the age of retirement and make suitable recommendations to the administrative Ministry/department concerned for taking the approval of the Cabinet. All the Administrative Ministries/departments are requested to follow the above procedure in case the age of retirement of employees of sick/ unviable P. S. U. for which rehabilitation/revival packages are under consideration, is to be rolled back to 58 years. The P. S. Us, unde