JUDGMENT Aloke Chakraborti, J.: Heard Mr. Jayanta Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Malay Basu, learned counsel of the Tyre Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Corporation') and its authorities and Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Union of India. 2. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is rolling back of age of retirement of the employees of the said corporation. Admittedly, in respect of employees of the said corporation age of retirement earlier was 58 years and it was increased to 60 years in the year 1998 following a Government policy. On May 9, 2000, further Government policy was declared for rolling back the age of retirement age in 58 years in respect of employees generally giving some guidelines. Following the same a further memorandum dated October 17, 2000 was issued. The Board of Directors of the said corporation adopted a resolution for rolling back the age of retirement of the employees of the corporation. Such resolution was dated November 14, 2000. While confirming the said resolution in the next meeting of the Board of Directors of the said corporation on March 14, 2001 some alterations were effected as regards discussion in the meeting before resolution was taken in its earlier meeting. The implementation of such decision and the said resolutions have been challenged by the petitioner association on the ground such decision was not in accordance with the guidelines given in the original policy of the Government and strong contention has been made that though policy of the Government is not being challenged but implementation of the said policy is being challenged on the ground that the same was not in accordance with the guidelines provided in the policy itself. 3. Mr. Mitra, appearing for the petitioner contended that the policy was on the proposal for rolling back the age of retirement in the case of "some sick unviable P.S.Us for which rehabilitation revival packages are under consideration. 3. Mr. Mitra, appearing for the petitioner contended that the policy was on the proposal for rolling back the age of retirement in the case of "some sick unviable P.S.Us for which rehabilitation revival packages are under consideration. "The procedure for the same, as recorded in the said office memorandum dated May 9, 2000 was that "in such cases the board of the concerned company should review its decision on the rolling back of age of retirement and make suitable recommendations to the administrative ministry/department concerned for taking the approval of the cabinet." Admittedly the said policy decision was subsequently changed to the extent the approval was no more required from the cabinet but from the Hon'ble Minister concerned. It is the contention of the petitioner that the memorandum issued on October 17, 2000 on the basis of the aforesaid policy decision dated May 9, 2000, recorded a consideration that some public sector enterprises under the administrative control of deparment of heavy industry are unable to generate sufficient resources even for meeting expenditure on account of salary and wages of their employees and have to seek budgetery support on' this account and in this situation it was observed to be appropriate that such enterprises which are seeking Government support for meeting their wage bills resort to the measure of reduction of the retirement age of their employee to 58 years. It was categorically recorded therein that procedure laid down in the office memorandum dated May 9, 2000 is to be observed. 4. Relying on the resolution dated November 14, 2000 by the Board of Directors of the corporation, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no consideration was made therein as regards facts involved in respect of the said corporation and as to whether requirements of the Government policy as contained in the office memorandum dated May 9, 2000 and October 17, 2000 have at all been existing and therefore, the decision to roll back the retirement age so resolved in deviation of the requirements of the Government policy is liable to be quashed. The portion of the resolution relied on by the petitioner is as follows:- "The Board was informed that due to severe financial crunch the company is facing great difficulty in releasing salary and wages for their employees and the Government support for payment of the above is absolutely necessary. The portion of the resolution relied on by the petitioner is as follows:- "The Board was informed that due to severe financial crunch the company is facing great difficulty in releasing salary and wages for their employees and the Government support for payment of the above is absolutely necessary. It was further informed that for seeking Government support those units which are unable to generate sufficient resources for meeting expenditure on account of salary and wages for the employees may initiate measures to reduce the retirement age of their employees from 60 years to 58 years in order to economise their wage bill." 5. It is contended that though unitwise positions were being considered by the Board in respect of the said corporation, but actual facts have not been taken into consideration and it is stated that actual facts are contrary to the aforesaid consideration. It is stated that the said corporation had its three units, one at Kalyani, one known as IRP unit at Tangra and the third at Kankinara. It is stated out of these units, the unit at Kalyani has already been closed and with regard to IRP unit at Tangra, decision to close it down with effect from August 27, 2001 has already been taken. With regard to Kankinara unit, the records will show it does not require salary and wages bills for the employees of the said unit to be supported by Government grant and upon a finding as regards its viability, the said unit has been decided to be continued to run. These aspects have not been taken into consideration. Therefore, the decision to roll back retirement ape is contrary to the Government policy. 6. Mr. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the corporation contended that the corporation is taking Government help for payment of salary of the employees of the corporation for a long time and although it is not disputed as regards closure of the units at Kalyani and Tangra, as stated by the petitioner, dispute has been raised as regards viability of Kankinara unit and it has been contended that it is also a concern incurring loss for last few years. It is stated that all such facts relied on by the petitioner were taken into consideration by the Board while taking resolution on November 14, 2000 and therefore, said resolution of the Board is in tune with the policy as framed by the Government. 7. Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the Government supported the action of the corporation and contended that the materials available with the Government also support the contention of the respondent corporation. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of T.P. George vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1992 (Supp.3) SCC 141, for contending that policy made by a Government cannot be challenged in a court of law. Learned counsel also relied on the documents annexed to the affidavit filed by the Government for showing that salary and wages for the employees of the corporation were being met with obtaining grant from the Government. It is stated that from Annexure 'N to the said affidavit that the budgetery assistance on the non-plan item was with regard to payment of salary and wages in respect of employees of the corporation and budgetery assistance in this respect was being paid for a long time by the Government and therefore, the decision to roll back the retirement age in such circumstances is fully justified. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, showed that the said entire budgetery assistance was relating to salary and wages in respect of the employees of IRP unit of the corporation at Tangra and there was not a single payment of such grant in respect of any salary or wages in respect of employees at Kankinara as shown. Moreover, it is stated, the payment towards voluntary separation scheme and the provident fund liabilities are not amounts towards salary and wages and the amount of provident fund liability towards share of the management remaining arear, was to be met by the Government grant and this has no connection with the salary and wages of the employees. Moreover, it is stated, the payment towards voluntary separation scheme and the provident fund liabilities are not amounts towards salary and wages and the amount of provident fund liability towards share of the management remaining arear, was to be met by the Government grant and this has no connection with the salary and wages of the employees. It is stated that on such facts, it is apparent that there was no material showing obtaining of Government grant in respect of salary and wages of the employees at Kankinara unit and therefore, rolling back of the retirement age of the corporation when admittedly other two units are being stopped, does not find justification in view of the policy of the Government. Law has been relied on as decided in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S. Muddappa, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1902 , Secretary of State vs. Tameside, reported in 1976 (3) All. KR. 665 and Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. etc. vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1991 SC 537 . 9. After considering the aforesaid, I find• that admittedly the corporation was having three units and closure of two of them is admitted. The third unit at Kankinara is functioning and the report of the Board for Financial and Industrial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) also considered it viability. It is also apparent that the Government policy as contained in the office memorandum dated May 9, 2000 and October 17, 2000, did not prescribe rolling back of retirement age in all public sector undertakings. It was restricted to only those such undertakings which were compelled to take Government grant for meeting the bills for wages and salaries of its employees. The contention of the corporation is that such grants are being obtained by the corporation from the Government for a long time. The Government of India in its affidavit has disclosed materials to show that such grants were being obtained. But apparently the documents disclosed by the Government of India in support of the said affidavit clearly indicate that such grants were being obtained by the corporation in respect of meeting the wages bills and salary bills of the IRP unit at Tangra which admittedly has been decided to close with effect from August, 27, 2001. But apparently the documents disclosed by the Government of India in support of the said affidavit clearly indicate that such grants were being obtained by the corporation in respect of meeting the wages bills and salary bills of the IRP unit at Tangra which admittedly has been decided to close with effect from August, 27, 2001. On behalf of the corporation nothing has been shown that any wage bill in respect of the employees at Kankinara was paid obtaining grant from the Government. Both the other units having admittedly been closed, the corporation now to be run only with Kankinara unit does not appear to be having any requirement of obtaining Government grant for the purpose of payment of salary and wages bills of the employees working in Kankinara. There has no further responsibility with regard to employees at Kalyani and admittedly number of employees in Tangra had been reduced from 814 to 96 initially and thereafter with floating of the scheme for voluntary separation it is being further reduced almost to zero. 10. The other two items on account of which Government grant had to be obtained as available from the documents annexed to the affidavit of Government of India, are provident fund and voluntary separation scheme. These two items do not come under salary and wages of employees particularly when provident fund dues were to the extent of employers' share kept in arrear. 11. Therefore, it is apparent that even after affidavits have been filed both by the corporation and the Government nothing has been produced to show Government grant were being obtained on account of meeting the wages bills and salary bills of the employees at Kankinara and earlier entire requirement was with regard to employees of IRP unit at Tangra which has been decided already to be closed. Therefore, there is no material apparent on which it can be concluded that the Board while deciding the rolling back of age of retirement of its employees took into consideration the aforesaid aspects although the same was the clear intention of the Government policy. 12. In the present case, the policy of the Government having not been challenged, the law cited by the learned counsel for the respondent Government does not require consideration. 12. In the present case, the policy of the Government having not been challenged, the law cited by the learned counsel for the respondent Government does not require consideration. With regard to the principles of law relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the judgment in the case of Secretary of State vs. Tameside (supra) applies in the present facts that the relevant observation in the said judgement in the case of Secretary of State vs. Tameside is as follows:- "The section is framed in a subjective form-if the Secretary of State 'is satisfied'. This form of section is quite well known, and at first sight might seem to exclude judicial review on what is or has become a matter of pure judgment. But I do not think that they go further than that. If a judgment requires, before it can be made, the existence of some facts, then, although the evaluation of those facts is for the Secretary of State alone, the court must enquire whether those facts exist, and have been taken into account, whether the judgment has not been made on other facts which ought not to have been taken into account. If these requirements are not met, then exercise of judgment, however bona fide it may be, becomes capable of challenge." 13. I find that in the present case the aforementioned relevant facts including closure of the two units and no Government grants for wage bills of Kankinara unit were neither shown to have been considered before adopting the resolution nor have been disclosed subsequently in course of the present proceeding as existing. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned decision in such circumstances cannot stand when the principle aforesaid is applied and found that the declared Government policy was not really followed. 14. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned resolutions dated November 14, 2000 and confirmed on March 14, 2001 by the respondent corporation will not be given effect to and the notice dated May 7, 2001 at Annexure P-21 to the writ petition is here by quashed. 15. All parties are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this judgment on the usual undertaking. Later: After delivery of the judgment, the respondents prayed for stay of operation of this judgment and the same is refused. Writ petition allowed. Stay application refused.