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 regulations.

1. WP (C) No. 32073 of 2014 is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts. P6 and P11 orders passed by 4th and 5th Respondents respectively to the extent it enhanced the age of retirement of the workmen of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years by the 4th Respondent and affirmed in appeal by the 5th Respondent and for other related reliefs. The other two writ petitions are filed by workmen of the petitioner establishment in WP (C) No. 32073 of 2014 to declare that they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. I will consider WP (C) No. 32073 of 2014 in which the petitioner in WP (C) No. 34277 of 2014 is the additional 6th Respondent. The subject matter of these cases revolve round a question as to whether the workmen of the petitioner in WP (C) No. 32073 of 2014 are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. Therefore, the petitioners in the other writ petitions who are claiming the relief of continuance till 60 years of age will be guided by the decision in the said writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading for the disposal of WP (C) No. 32073 of 2014 are as follows:

3. Petitioner is a subsidiary company of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (for short, BHEL), a Government of India Enterprise. BHEL Electrical Machines Ltd. was formerly a Kerala Government Undertaking known as Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Ltd. Kasaragod Unit of the said establishment was taken over by BHEL as a joint venture Company with Government of Kerala, with share participation of 51% with BHEL, a Government of India Undertaking and 49% with Government of Kerala. The new Company was formed in the name of M/s. BHEL Electrical Machines Ltd. as on 19/11/2011 as a Government of India Enterprise.

4. Thereafter, petitioner submitted to the 4th Respondent draft Standing Orders applicable to workmen category for certification, by fixing the age of retirement of workmen at 58 years. The 4th Respondent incorrectly referred to and relied upon the outdated / superseded Ext. P3 guidelines issued by the Government of India on 19/05/1998 and enhanced the age of retirement of the workmen from 58 years to 60 years and passed Ext. P6 order. Even though an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the 5th Respondent against Ext. P6 order, the 5th Respondent dismissed the same by Ext. P11 order dated 17/10/2014 and it is thus challenging Exts. P6 and P11 orders passed by Respondents 4 and 5, this writ petition is filed.

5. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a joint counter - affidavit denying the contentious issues and basically contending that Exts. P6 and P11 orders passed by Respondents 4 and 5 are in accordance with law in view of Ext. P3 guidelines issued by the Union of India, enhancing the retirement age from 58 to 60 years. So also, it is contended that even if the retirement age of the erstwhile State Government Company was fixed at 58 years as per the Standing Order, in view of subsequent take over of the same by the petitioner, Ext. P3 guideline of the Government of India has become binding on the petitioner and therefore, as of right, the employees of the petitioner Company is entitled to continue till they attain the age of 60 years. Furthermore, it is also contended that since the employees who opted to join the new company will be governed by the rules in vogue in the old Company until new Standing Orders are certified by the competent authority. Therefore, it was only a temporary arrangement agreed between the management and Unions until