Back
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
C. Pentaiah – Appellant
Versus
HMT Machine Tools Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Challenge in all these Writ Petitions is to the inaction of respondents in implementing Office Orders No. 4/13 dated 30.04.2013 and 07/13 dated 06.06.2013 issued by HMT Limited, Registered Office, HMT Bhavan, Bellary Road, Bangalore for enhancing age of retirement of petitioner to 60 years. Vide said Office Orders, the age of superannuation in respect of the employees of HMT Limited is enhanced from 58 to 60 years with effect from 18.04.2013 by way of amendment to Rule 24.2(a) of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules of the Company.
2. Heard Sri P. Giri Krishna and Sri A. Saidulu, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Gade Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General on behalf of Government of India and Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent Company.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No. 23029 of 2015 are taken up for consideration.
4. The case of petitioner is that, petitioner joined service on 01.01.1983 in HMT Limited at Hyderabad as Coupon Vendor, promoted as Worker Supervisor in 2005 and since then, has been working as Worker Supervisor-(WS-I) Accounts with Ticket No. 4679 in HMT Machine Tools Limited at Hyde
The legal principle established is the binding nature of government guidelines mandating a retirement age of 60 years for Central Public Sector Enterprises, overriding any contradictory internal regu....
The court upheld the retirement age of 60 for employees of a public sector undertaking, declaring attempts to roll back this age unauthorized without Cabinet approval.
The court upheld the validity of the bifurcation of HMT Limited and the amendment reducing the retirement age to 58 years, affirming the applicability of the amended Standing Orders.
whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall n....
The court upheld the retirement age of 58 years as per established service rules, rejecting claims for parity with the Chief Executive's extended retirement age of 60 years, emphasizing rule adherenc....
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 enhancement of retirement age is a policy decision of the government, not a right of employees, and cannot be mandated by the court.
The enhancement of retirement age is a policy decision of the government, and employees cannot claim a right to continue in service pending such a decision.
Changes to retirement age rules are prospective and cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
