Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 378 (DEL)

K. S. ANANDRAM v. UNION OF INDIA

2001-09-12

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

body2001
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA ( 1 ). As the facts and the issues arising for consideration in these two writ petitions are similar, I propose to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common judgment/order. ( 2 ). The main issue that is involved in both superannuation. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the age of retirement of the petitioners should be fixed at 60 years instead of 58 years. The petitioiners were appointed by the national Council for Cooperative Training (National 29/6/1993. In the said letter it is stated that the National Council for Cooperative Training has appointed the said petitioner as Direct. Recruit professor w. w. f. 15/9/1992. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the petitioner would and Regulations of the NCCT in force from time to time. ( 3 ) SERVICE conditions of the petitioner are governed by the service rules which are formulated and adopted by the National Council for Cooperative trainins of the National Cooperative Union of india. A copy of the said Service Rules is placed paragraph 1. 1 of the said Rules it is stated that council for Cooperative Training (NCCT) or the national Cooperative Union of India (NCUI) employees Service Rules, 1994. Sub-clause (i) thereof provides that the same would come into force from the date of issue after their approval by the National Council fur Cooperative Training (National Cooperative Union of India) and government of India and shall supersede all other rules on the subject in force in the Council. Clause 9 thereof provides that in case of compulsory retirement/voluntary retirement, the central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 as amended from time to time shall apply. On the it provides that an employee would retire from the service of the Council on his attaining the age of 58 years in case of Groups a and b employees in academic Cadre on the last day of the month in which he or she attains the age of 58 years and in b and c on his or her attaining the age of 58 years whereas the Group d employees on his attaining the age of 60 years. ( 4 ). ( 4 ). It was submitted that for all practical purposes the petitioners enjoyed all the benefits that are made available to the employees of the position when the 5th Pay Commission recommended raising of the retirement age from 58 years to 60 of the petitioners and therefore, the age of retirement of the petitioners now stood raised from 58 years to 60 years. The records placed disclose that proposal for raising retirement age from 58 years to 60 years for the employees of NCCT in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay agriculture as stated under letter dated 27/1/1999, a copy or the said letter is placed on record as annexure P-12. In the aforesaid letter it is indicated that, a resolution was passed in the XXXth meeting of the NCCT held on 18/12/1998 and in respect of the same it was stated that NCCT was set up by NCUI under its Bye-Law No. 16 (A) with the the President, of NCUI is the Chairman of NCCT and and EVC of NCCT. It was also made clear in the said communication that there is organic link between NCCT and NCUI and therefore, NCCT is not a registered society and is not a distinct unit apart from NCUI and so existence of NCCT cannot be thought of in isolation or NCUI. Attention of the chief Executive of the NCUI was drawn under the aforesaid communication to the earlier letter of the Ministry Dated 30/7/1998 that before any action to mudify the retirement age is taken up a in the Govevning Body of the NCCT and therefore, clarified that merely by passing a resolution by the Committee of NCCT, that too by just six members present out of 30 members may not hold good for the governing Body or the General Body of the NCUI nor any approval was given by the Government of India retirement age from 58 years to 60 yeas. No amendment was also brought in the aforesaid Service rules at any point of time. Unless and until such a resolution valid in law is passed by the competent Authority and approved by the Central rules governing the service conditions of the petitioners, it cannot be said that the said recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission petitioners. ( 5 ). Unless and until such a resolution valid in law is passed by the competent Authority and approved by the Central rules governing the service conditions of the petitioners, it cannot be said that the said recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission petitioners. ( 5 ). It transpires from the records that following the letter dated 27/1/1999 the Governing council of NCUI met in its 109th meeting on 29/3/1999 and took the following decision: agenda Item No. 11: Consideration of the letter from the Government of India regarding raising the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years for the employees of NCCT. The Governing Council dropped the proposal for raising the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years for the employees of NCCT. ( 6 ). It is crystal clear from the aforesaid resolution that NCUI did not approve the proposal for enhancement of the retirement age from 58 years the NCCT for enhancement or the retirement age from 58 to 60 years was neither approved by NCUI nor by the Government of India. ( 7 ). I have already referred to rule 11 of the service Rules governing the service conditions of the petitioners. The said rule indicates that for amending the Service Rules in the matter and for enhancement of retirement age Said position record whereunder Government s approval had been sought for. It is thus clearly established that for the petitioner cannot be accepted that retirement age stands raised to 60 years. My attention was also drawn to a Division Bench decision of Kerala High Court in Director General, national Council for Cooperative Training Vs. Dr. A. Ramakrishnan and another (WA No. 2948/2000 disputed of on 24/11/2000) and also to the decision of calcutta High Court, in writ Petition no. 19372 (W)/1998, Shri Badal Chandra Chakraborty vs. Union of India and Others, disposed of on 13/2/2001. Similar contentions as raised in the said High Courts. In the said decisions it was approved the proposal the petitioner has no legal right to continue in service beyond 58 years of age. I am in respectful agreement with the calcutta High Court. The petitioners were clearly stipulates that employees like the petitioners would stand retired on completion of 58 years of age. No amendment was made to the said rules in till they attain the age or 60 years. ( 8 ). I am in respectful agreement with the calcutta High Court. The petitioners were clearly stipulates that employees like the petitioners would stand retired on completion of 58 years of age. No amendment was made to the said rules in till they attain the age or 60 years. ( 8 ). IN that view of the matter, I do not find that if any of the pettioners had served beyond the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petitions stand disposed of.