Back
1994 Supreme(All) 259
High Court Of Allahabad
S.P. Srivastava, J.
Sam Dhan Kantak – Appellant
Versus
Additional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5783 of 1994
Decided On : Mar 17,1994
Pradeep Chandra
Classification of employees into different categories for the purpose of retirement age, based on the nature of work and responsibilities, is not arbitrary or discriminatory and does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
RETIREMENT AGE - CLASSIFICATION - FUNDAMENTAL RULE 56 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - U. P. FUNDAMENTAL (FIRST AMENDMENT) RULES, 1987 - VALIDITY - ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Superintendent Grade-2 employee, challenged the action of the respondents to superannuate him at the age of 58 years, as per the amended Fundamental Rule 56, which fixed the retirement age for employees in his category at 58 years, while employees falling in group 'D' were allowed to retire at 60 years. The petitioner contended that this differential treatment violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the classification of employees into two categories, those falling in group 'D' and those falling in group 'C' or higher categories, for the purpose of retirement age, was not arbitrary or discriminatory. The Court found that the nature of work performed by employees in these two categories was different, and that the differential treatment in retirement age was justified based on the nature of work and responsibilities.
Issues: 1. Whether the classification of employees into two categories, those falling in group 'D' and those falling in group 'C' or higher categories, for the purpose of retirement age, was arbitrary or discriminatory. 2. Whether the differential treatment in retirement age between these two categories of employees violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the classification of employees into two categories, those falling in group 'D' and those falling in group 'C' or higher categories, for the purpose of retirement age, was not arbitrary or discriminatory. The Court found that the nature of work performed by employees in these two categories was different, and that the differential treatment in retirement age was justified based on the nature of work and responsibilities. 2. The Court held that the differential treatment in retirement age between these two categories of employees did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it was based on a reasonable classification and had a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the amended Fundamental Rule 56 was constitutionally valid and that the petitioner was not entitled to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years.
S.P. Srivastava
1. THE Petitioner,, who had initially been recruited as a Routine Grade Clerk in the year 1959 and later on had been promoted on the post of Superintendent Grade-2 in the year 1992, which post carries a time scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600 has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities to superannuate him on his attaining the age of 58 years.
2. IT appears that the Additional Secretary, Secondary Education, Regional Office, Allahabad issued a Circular dated 15-7-1993, requiring all the Superintendents and Section Officers of the Regional Office to ensure that no dues are payable by the employees falling in category 3 and 4 as well as regularised workmen who were going to retire in the year 1994, the particulars whereof were furnished in the attached list. This circular appears to have been issued with the objective that the issuence of a 'no dues' certificates in favour of the Superannuating employees may not be unnecessarily delayed and the post retirement benefits may be made available to these employees at the earliest The list appended to the aforesaid Circular contained the name of the petitioner indicating his date of retirement as 28-2-1994 on which date he was to reach the age of superannuation of 58 years. IT further appears that the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Secretary (Education) Government of U. P. Lucknow bringing to his notice that he was going to attain the age of superannuation in the month of February, 1994 and claiming that his date of birth as entered in High School certificate was not correct but his application seeking correction of the date of birth was rejected although on the basis of his correct dated of birth, he could continue for two years more in service, the petitioner, in the aforesaid representation prayed for an extension of service for a period of two years taking into consideration his past performance in the service. The representation of the petitioner seeking extension of service appears to have been recommended by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad vide the letter dated 30-12-1993.
During the pendency of the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking extension of service for a period of two years, the respondent authorities sought to implement the decision dated 15-7-1993 to which a reference has already been made above, whereupon the present writ petition was filed on 16-2-1994 seeking the quashing of the order dated 15-7-1993 and a direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid order and further not to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years. The petitioner further prayed for the issuance of a direction holding the Rule 56-A of U. P. Fundamental (First Amendment) Rules, 1987 as ultravires.
3. I have heard Sri Pradeep Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel representing the, respondents and have carefully perused the record.
4. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the Board of Secondary Education had always been treated as a department of Government for all purposes other than those powers which the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P.. (U. P. Act No. 2 of 1921) Act itself had specifically conferred and made the Board autonomous to that extent and the status of the petitioner is that of civil servant under the State. He has placed strong reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gulam Haqqani Khan v. State of U. P., AIR 1962 Alld. 413. What has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the circumstances the provisions contained in the Fundamental Rules 56 of Financial Hand Book, part 2 and 4 become applicable to the petitioner and since by virtue of U. P. Fundamental (First Amendment) Rules, 1987, the age of superannuation so far as the employees f
