LPA No.952 of 2011 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

LPA No.952 of 2011 (O&M)

Date of Decision 26.05.2011

Shiv Kumar and others

-----Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana and others

---Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH

Present:

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate

for the appellant.

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

M.M. KUMAR, J.

1.

The short question raised in the instant petition filed

under Clause X of the Letters Patent is whether the appellant could

avoid the reduction in the age of retirement to 58 years which has

been effected by the amendment made in 1988 to the Haryana State

Supply and Marketing Cooperative Service (Common Cadre) Rules,

1969 (for brevity 'the 1969 Rules') . It is appropriate to mention that

after amendment under the 1988 Rules, the age of retirement has

now been provided to be 58 years whereas under the 1969 Rules,

the age of retirement was 58 years with further provision for

However, extension of 2 years that could be granted by the

Administrative Committee after taking into account the service record

and the medical fitness.

2.

The learned Single Judge held that the respondents were

well within their rights to effect the change in age of retirement and

no right of the appellant has been infringed. The extension of two

years provided by 1969 Rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

In any case, we are of the view that the State is not precluded from

reducing the age of retirement and making the amendment

LPA No.952 of 2011 (O&M)

-2-

applicable to the present incumbents who are holding the post. The

aforesaid view has been taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court

rendered in the case of K. Nagaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh

AIR 1985 SC 551 and the same view has been followed by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nagaland Senior

Government Employees Welfare Association and others v.

State of Nagaland and others (2010) 7 SCC 643. The fixation

of age of retirement essentially is a matter of executive policy which

is largely dependent on need of administration. In K. Nagraja's

case (supra), the age of public servant was decreased to 55 years

and the constitutional validity of the rule was challenged. Hon'ble

the Supreme Court held that the legislature did not act arbitrarily or

irrationally. The appellants cannot make a complaint that by reducing

the age of retirement to 58 years, any vested rights have been taken

away because amendment made in the Rule in 1988 Rules would

certainly apply to the case of the appellants who have retired on

30.04.2011. The Rule framed in the year 1988, obviously would

apply and govern the age of their retirement. In view of the

judgment rendered in K. Nagrajan's case (supra), the appeal

does not merit admission.

3.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

(M.M. KUMAR)

JUDGE

(GURDEV SINGH)

JUDGE

May 26, 2011

Atul