Point of Law: Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to challenge the action of NOIDA. Though NOIDA sought the approval of the State government for the enhancement with ‘immediate effect’ it never intended or portrayed to have intended to give retrospective effect to the prospectively applicable Government order.

ORDER :

1. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court.

2. Facts of the Writ Petition No. 10496 of 2021 are narrated hereunder.

3. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Reserve Sub Inspector on 18.05.1992, he was promoted as Assistant Commandant on 17.03.2017 and finally superannuated on 28.02.2021. The other petitioners have also furnished their service details and the fact remains that all of them are retired Government servants.

4. The submission of the petitioners is that the Ruling Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) Party in the year 2018 has given an assurance at the time of elections for enhancing the age of superannuation of Telangana Government employees to 61 years and the matter was pending for consideration. The petitioners further stated that His Excellency the Governor of Telangana in a Republic Day Speech given on 26.01.2021 has also made a promise in respect of enhancement of retirement age. The petitioners further stated that the First Pay Revision Commission of Telangana State submitted its Report on 31.12.2020 giving its findings on various aspects including enhancement of pay and retirement age of the employees and one of its recommendation was to enhance the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. The petitioners further stated that the Report was submitted on 31.12.2020 and therefore, the age of superannuation should have been enhanced from the date of the Report to the State Government. The petitioners further stated that the State Legislature has passed the Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2021. The petitioners have reproduced the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introduction of the Bill, which is reproduced as under:

“The issue of enhancing the superannuation age for Government employees has been under consideration of the Government for some time for reasons such as increase in the expectancy, health conditions and late entry into Government service due to increase in the qualifying age. The issue was accordingly referred to the First Telangana Pay Revision Commission for examination. The Pay Revision Commission in its Report recommended from 58 years to 60 years. Government have considered the report of the Pay Revision Commission and after further consultation with various Employees and Service Associations and due examination of all the relevant factors, decided that it would be appropriate to enhance the age of superannuation for all State Government employees, whose age of superannuation at present is 58 years or 60 years, to 61 years, by suitably amending the Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984.”

5. The petitioners’ contention is that in the aforesaid Bill, there was no stipulation in respect of date of enforcement. However, the Telangana Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 45, Finance (HRM-III) Department, dated 30.03.2021, appointing 30th day of March, 2021 as the date on which the Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2021 shall come into force. The petitioners’ grievance is that the age of superannuation has been enhanced from 58 years to 61 years with effect from 30.03.2021 and the employees superannuated prior to the aforesaid date have been discriminated and therefore, the Amending Act of 2021 and Government Order, i.e. G.O.Ms. No. 45, dated 30.03.2021 are violative of Articles 14, 16 and 20 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have raised various grounds in challenging the cut-off date fixed under the Government Order and the Amending Act of 2021. The contention of the petitioners is that the Amending Act, keeping in view the Pay Revision Commission’s Report, should have been made applicable with retrospective effect i.e. from 31.12.2020 and the cut-off date as fixed by the State Government, keeping in view