Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
C. Pentaiah – Petitioner
Versus
HMT Machine Tools Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 30320, 31195, 34275, 34410 of 2013, Writ Petition Nos. 2222, 2371, 2540, 8818, 13838, 39436 of 2014, Writ Petition Nos. 4841, 8324, 19483, 23029, 23358, 23616, 23944, 23969, 27582, 27585, 27959, 31520 of 2015, Writ Petition Nos. 3263, 6957, 10625 of 2016
Decided On : 12-09-2024
(A) Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules of HMT Limited – Amendment to Rule 24.2(a) – Age of superannuation – Petitioners challenged the non-implementation of Office Orders enhancing retirement age from 58 to 60 years – Court held that the orders apply only to HMT Limited and not its subsidiaries – Petitioners bound by Certified Standing Orders of HMT Machine Tools Limited, which maintain retirement age at 58 years. (Paras 1, 10, 16)
(B) Legal Principle – The enhancement of retirement age is a matter of executive policy and cannot be applied to subsidiaries without specific directives. (Paras 11, 16)
Facts of the case: Petitioners, employees of HMT Machine Tools Limited, sought to challenge their retirement age of 58 years, arguing it should be aligned with HMT Limited's policy change to 60 years. (Paras 4, 5)
Findings of Court: The Court found that the retirement age of 60 years was not applicable to the subsidiary company, and the petitioners were bound by the existing rules. (Paras 10, 16)
Issues: Whether the retirement age of 60 years applies to employees of HMT Machine Tools Limited based on the orders issued for HMT Limited. (Paras 1, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the policy change regarding retirement age was specific to HMT Limited and did not extend to its subsidiaries, emphasizing the independence of subsidiary companies in governance. (Paras 10, 16)
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
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 Hyderabad. It is stated that his date of birth is 05.07.1957 and his retirement would be on 31.07.2015 (58 years).
Petitioner contends that when he joined service, HMT Machine Tools Limited does not exist and it was HMT Limited only. In 1998, the 3rd respondent-Government of India had taken a policy decision vide Office Memorandum dated 19.05.1998 to enhance the age of superannuation/retirement from 58 to 60 years. It is stated that since the said benefit was being adopted by most of the public-sector undertakings, HMT limited had also extended the same to its employees. However, in 2000, HMT Limited formed three subsidiaries i.e. HMT Watches Limited, HMT Machine Tools Limited and HMT Chinar Watches Limited. Petitioner was transferred to HMT Machine Tools Limited by proceedings dated 14.06.2001 with effect from 01.04.2001 without any change in service conditions and without break in service.
It is further stated that in October, 2002, the 3rd respondent, in view of the then financial situation of HMT Limited and its subsidiaries and also similarly-placed publicsector undertakings and enterprises, had taken a policy decision and directed all the public-sector undertakings which were making profit marginally to have a roll back in the age of superannuation from 60 to 58 years and accordingly, the age of superannuation in HMT Limited and in its five units has been reduced from 60 to 58 years. Petitioner’s case is that HMT Limited has about five subsidiaries located at Bangalore (Karnataka), Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh), Kalamassery (Kerala), Pinjore (Haryana) and Ajmer (Rajastan) and the service conditions and pay scales of the employees of the above 5 organs/units of HMT Ltd. is one and the same.
While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent again had taken a decision to enhance the retirement age of employees of HMT Limited from 58 to 60 years as part of Revival Plan Proposal of HMT Limited approved by Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) during its meeting held on 18.04.2013. The 2nd respondent had also issued Office Order No. 04/13 dated 30.04.2013 implementing the said decision; followed by Office Order No. 07/13 dated 06.06.2013 implementing the age of superannuation as 60 years with effect from 14.05.2013 by bringing amendment to Rule 24.2(a) of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules of the Company. However, the 1st respondent has not implemented the same in the unit at Hyderabad. Consequently, by letters dated 14.06.2015 and 15.07.2015, the 1st respondent informed petitioner that he would be retiring on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years on the After Noon of 31.07.2015.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri P. Giri Krishna submits that the 1st respondent failed to see that petitioner initially joined in service in HMT Limited and th
The retirement age policy change from 58 to 60 years applies only to HMT Limited and not to its subsidiaries, which remain governed by their own rules.
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.
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
