Holding

The regulation does not grant the management discretion to extend the retirement age of an individual employee beyond the prescribed ceiling, and therefore it does not violate Articles 14 and 16; the High Court's dismissal is upheld.

Summary

The appellant, an employee of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, filed a writ petition seeking an order to extend his retirement age so that he could remain in service until his superannuation date of 31 July 2007. He contended that Regulation 2(a) of the UP State Electricity Board (Employees' Retirement) Regulations, 1975, which fixes the retirement age at 58 and allows retention up to 60 with board sanction, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the management has no discretion to extend the retirement age for an individual employee. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, observing that the regulation permits retention only up to 60 years in special circumstances and does not grant unfettered discretion to the employer; consequently, the regulation does not infringe the constitutional provisions. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Regulation 2(a) of the UP State Electricity Board (Employees' Retirement) Regulations, 1975, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the management of the State Electricity Board has discretion to extend the retirement age of an individual employee beyond the limits prescribed in the regulation.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition seeking extension of retirement age for the appellant.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16

Subjects

retirement ageextension of serviceconstitutional lawArticles 14 and 16discretionpublic sector employmentlabour lawstate electricity board

Judgment

~-
:::t

TEJ BAHADUR RAM A
V,

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 7. 2006

[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] B

labour laws:

UP. State Electricity Board (Employees' Retirement) Regulations, 1975-
Regulation 2-Retirement age-Extension of-Sought for individual
c
employee-Permissibility-Held: There is no discretion to the management
to extend the age of retirement of individual employee.

Appellant-employee filed a Writ Petition seeking order to the
respondent-management for extending the age of retirement so far as it related D
rr to the appellant alone and a consequential relief to allow him to continue in
serYice till the due date of superannuation age. High Court dismissed the Writ
Petition.

In appeal to this Court appellant contended that Regulation 2(a) of the
U.P. State Electricity Board (Employees' Retirement) Regulations, 1975 is E
hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution oflndia, 1950.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition since there
is no discretion to the Management for extending the age of retirement of
F
y
individual employee. Rule 2 of U.P. State Electricity Board (Employees'
~ Retirement) Regulations, 1975 giYes discretion to the Management to retain
the employee in service after the age of compulsory retirement with the
preYious sanction of the Board in writing, but he must not be retained after
the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances. 1797-D-FI G
Hindustan Antibiotics ltd. "· The Workmen of Kerala State Electricity
Board, AIR 1967 SC 948, distinguished.

-; -~ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3976 of2006.
H
793
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
I
~ t:
A From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.2005 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51499 of2005.

Dr. R.G. Padia and Purnima Bhat for the Appellant.

Subhrajyoti Borthakur, Baijoyonta Barooah and Sunil Kumar Jain for the
B Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted.

c Heard Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr.
Subhrajyoti Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondents.

This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated ~
26.7.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 51499 of 2005. The appellant filed the writ petition before
D the High Court with the following prayer:

(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 13.8.2004 passed by respondent no.3
(Annexure 4) so far it relates to the petitioner only;
E (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding
the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till '
31. 7.2007 the due date of superannuation age;
(iii) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
F
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the
ground that there is no discretion to the Management for extending the age ,,,.
of retirement of individual employee, and therefore, the decision of the Supreme
Court has no application. Our attention was also drawn to the judgment of ..
the Supreme Court in Hindustan Antibiotics ltd. v. The Workmen, reported
G in AIR (1967) SC 948. In our opinion, the High Court has rightly dismissed
the writ petition since there is no discretion to the Management for extending
the age of retirement of individual employee.

Our attention was also drawn to Rule 2 of U.P. State Electricity Board
H (Employees' Retirement) Regulations, 1975, which deals with date of
compulsory retirement and reads thus: \.. -:"
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
I- <

A is entitled to get benefit of Rules framed by the State for this employees
hence entitled to be continue in service till the age of 60 years."

Though the ground in regard to Section 23 of the U.P. Electricity Refonns Act,
1999 had been raised, there is no indication from the order impugned that the
said contention was argued before the High Court. The High Court was not
B called upon to decide the issue which was not argued before it. We have
already extracted the prayer made in the writ petition. The prayer is to quash
order dated 13.8.2004 passed by respondent no.3 insofar as it relates to the
appellant and for a consequential mandamus commanding the respondents to
allow the appellant to continue in service tilt 31.7.2007 the due date of
superannuation age. The appellant has not questioned the validity of
c provisions ofU.P. State Electricity Board (Employees' Retirement) Regulations,
1975.

Dr. Padia has cited AIR (1967) SC 948 (Hindustan Antibiotics ltd. v. The
Workmen of Kera/a State Electricity Board) and drew our attention to
D paragraph 39, which reads thus:
'The next question is the fixation of the age of retirement for the
employees. The existing age of retirement is 55 extendable to 60 years
at the discretion of the management if the workmen are considered
suitable and if they are medically fit and mentally alert. The Tribunal
E raised the age of retirement from 55 years to 58 years but gave a
discretion to the Company to continue an employee after that age.
The learned counsel for the Workmen contended that the
superannuation age fixed by the Tribunal does not reflect the social
changes that have taken place in the country and has also ignored
the judicial trend in that regard. Reliance is placed upon the decision
F of this Court in G.M. Talang v. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd., [1964] 7
f .
SCR 424. Therein this Court held that the opinion furnished by the
several documents on record clearly showed a consistent trend in the
Bombay region to fix the retirement age of clerical and subordinate
staff at 60 years. In the course of the judgment, this Court noticed the
G Report of the Nonns Committee in which the following opinion was
expressed:

"After taking into consideration the views of the earlier Committees
and Commissions including those of the Second Pay Commission the
report of which has been released recently, we feel that the retirement
age for workmen in all industries should be fixed at 60. Accordingly,
.. C'"
H
TEJ BAHADUR RAM v. STATE OF U.P. [LAKSHMANAN. J.] 797

the norm for retirement age is fixed at 60." A
But it is said that the scope of the judgment was confined only to the
Bombay region and it should not be extended to the Poona region.
A perusal of the Tribunal's Award shows that it followed the decision
given by it in the dispute of Shaw Wallace and Co. ltd., which was
reversed by this Court. That part, the Tribunal also recognised that B
;- . the retirement age should be raised from 55 years to 58 years and that
even thereafter discn:tion should be given to the employers to continue
the employees or not to do so. This indicates that in the view of the
Tribunal, the retirement age in the case of the employees of the
industry in question could reasonably be raised beyond 58 years. We C
do not think it is proper to give a discretion tr the company to raise
the age of retirement or not to do so, for, the vesting of such
uncontrolled discretion on the employer might lead to manipulation
and victimisation. We would, therefore, following the trend of judicial
opinion, hold that the retirement age of the employees of the Company
should be raised to 60 years." D
' That decision was given in a case where under the Rule the age of retirement
was prescribed as 55 years extendable to 60 years at the discretion of the
management, if the workmen were considered suitable and if they were
medically fit and mentally sound. The Supreme Court said this kind of discretion
should not have been left to the Management as it could result in manipulation E
and victimization and, therefore, the retirement age of the employee should
be the upper age of 60 years. As already noticed, in the case in hand, the
Regulation fixes the retirement age of 58 years. The employee may be retained
in service after the age of 58 years with the previous sanction of the Board
in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very F
special circumstances. In our opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court is
distinguishable on facts and has no application.

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Court
is fully justified in passing the judgment challenged herein and there is no
perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. He also submitted that the G
decision of this Court in Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. (supra) has no applicability
to the present case and the High Court has rightly distinguished the same.
He would further submit that the issue of augmenting the age of
superannuation of the employees of the Corporation from 58 years to 60 years
was considered both by the State Government as well as by the Corporation,
and the age of superannuation after due consideration was retained at 58 H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. t '

A years. He would further submit that the services of the appellant were never
acquired by or vested into the State Government and hence the appellant is
not and cannot be the employee of the State Government and as such the
Rules of the State Government relating to age of superannuation of their
employees do not ipso facto apply to the appellant.

B We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side. We do not find any merit and substance
in the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no warrant for interference with
the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Civil Appeal
C stands dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.

-