IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, JJ.
T Yakaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos.9399, 10496, 11538, 11634, 11921, 12190, 13018, 13109, 14338, 14390, 15153, 15257, 15418, 15421, 15493, 16188, 16189, 16221, 16245, 16313, 17975, 18217, 18901, 19349, 21799, 23747, 24752, 24754, 26298, 26935 and 27180 of 2021
Decided On : 05-11-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 20 - Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2021 – Doctrine of promissory estoppels - Petitioners submit that Ruling Party in year 2018 has given an assurance at time of elections for enhancing age of superannuation of Telangana Government employees to 61 years and matter was pending for consideration - Contention of petitioners is that Amending Act, keeping in view Pay Revision Commission’s Report, should have been made applicable with retrospective effect and cut-off date as fixed by State Government, is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 20 of Constitution of India - That once a promise has been made by State Government for enhancing age of superannuation from 58 years to 61 years in year 2018 at time of Assembly Elections, State Government cannot deny benefit of enhancement in retirement age in light of promise and Governor has also made a promise to employees in respect of enhancement of retirement age.
Finding of the Court :
Fixation of cut-off date does not warrant any interference as fixation of cut-off date always leave a large number of employees unsatisfied - Petitioners have not been able to establish before this Court as to how it is discriminatory, arbitrary or violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India - Acceded to proposal for enhancement of age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years prospectively - To give prospective effect to enhancement of age of superannuation and in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India direct that retrospective effect be given to Government Order - Keeping in view all facts and grounds raised by petitioners and to direct State to grant benefit of Amending Act and Government Order with retrospective effect.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed
ORDER:
(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
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:-
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
Purshottam Lal v. Union of India
B.Prabhakara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra
Harwinder Kumar v. Chief Engineer
Harwinder Kumar and the subsequent cases (U.P Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh (2006) 11 SCC 464
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 ....
(1) Whether age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance age of superannuation, date with effect from which enhancement should be made falls....
Employees of autonomous bodies like the DRDA cannot claim parity with state government employees regarding retirement benefits unless explicitly provided by law or policy, and changes in retirement a....
The Court held that the enhancement of age of superannuation to 62 years is a policy decision of the State Government and does not automatically apply to employees governed by independent Bye-laws.
The enhancement of retirement age is a policy matter for the State Government and is not automatically applicable to all educational institutions under its governance without amendments to respective....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, which enhanced the age of superannuation of Government Employees from 60 years to 62 years, t....
The age of superannuation is governed by the specific bylaws of an institution, dictated by policy decisions of the State government.
The determination of superannuation age is a policy decision of the government, requiring its approval for amendments, and courts cannot intervene without legal authority.
The amendment to superannuation age applies to the petitioners as they are covered under service regulations, ensuring parity with government employees.
The enhancement of retirement age is a policy decision of the government, not a right of employees, and cannot be mandated by the court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.