Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 914 (PAT)

Lakshmi Sahani & Anr. v. Union Of India

2007-05-08

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for Union of India. 2. The two petitioners in the present writ application are employees of Jute Corporation of India posted in the districts of Purnia and Kishanganj. They have challenged the decision dated 12.12.2003 taken by the Board of Directors of the Jute Corporation of India, by virtue of which the age of superannuation of the employees working under the Corporation has been reduced from 60 to 58 years. 3. Many questions have been urged on behalf of the petitioners in support of writ application and the reliefs which have been prayed for therein. But this Court is not willing to go into the details of the same in the facts and circumstances which are being taken note of hereinbelow. 4. It is a fact that majority of the employees working under Jute Corporation of India are spread in and around in the State of West Bengal. The number of employees working as such in the State of Bihar are minuscule. When the decision to reduce the age of retirement was taken by the Board of Directors, the same came to be challenged by filing of a writ application bearing W.P.No. 462 of 2004 before Calcutta High Court. The issues raised therein are identical. A Bench of the said Court dismissed the writ application and refused to grant any relief to the petitioners of that case. By a Judicial order of Calcutta High Court dated 27.5.2005 this issue came to rest. This order, I am informed, has attained finality also and by virtue of the same the employees working under the Corporation are being retired at the age of 58 years. 5. This being the position this Court is disinclined to interfere in the present writ application because any order in this regard contrary to the view and the decision of the Calcutta High Court would not only create a conflict but may also create a situation where there may be two separate age of retirement of the employees working under one organisation. This is the primary reason why this Court is not willing to accede to the request of the petitioners on the various questions which have been urged by them to declare the decision of the Board of Directors to be invalid. 6. This is the primary reason why this Court is not willing to accede to the request of the petitioners on the various questions which have been urged by them to declare the decision of the Board of Directors to be invalid. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Jute Corporation and they have taken a stand that every Corporation or a Public Sector undertaking is legally entitled in its own right and authority to take a policy decision with regard to the age of superannuation of its employees. Undoubtedly in the past dependent on the policy which the Central Government had taken the Corporation had enhanced the age of retirement to 60 years, but on reconsideration on ground reality and works of its units if they have exercised their discretion and power bonafidely in this regard, no illegality can be said to have been committed by them. Learned counsel for the respondents further reinforces his argument by relying on a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Suresh Chandra Singh & Ors. V/s. Fertilizer Corpn. of India Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2004(1) SCC 592 . 7. This being the legal position in this regard this Court is not willing to enter into the area where as a matter of policy the Corporation has decided to fix the age of retirement of its employees to 58 years. It is not for this Court to interfere with the policy decision of a Government or statutory body unless it can be established that the power which has been exercised in this regard are in any manner invalid exercise of power. 8. Petitioners counsel thereafter brings to my notice certain other developments which have taken place. They state that the Corporations financial position has undergone a change in the year 2007 since the year, 2003. He also brings to my notice a representation addressed by Council of the Staff & Officers of the Jute Corporation of India dated 14.3.2007. They have given details of the facts and figure by virtue of which they have urged the Corporation to re-look into the matter. This Court in this regard can only state that it will be open to these petitioners to join and strengthen the hands of their representatives or union for prevailing upon the management to enhance the age of its employees from 58 to 60 years. This Court in this regard can only state that it will be open to these petitioners to join and strengthen the hands of their representatives or union for prevailing upon the management to enhance the age of its employees from 58 to 60 years. This Court cannot come in the way and the claim which has been raised by way of a representation of the employees contained in annexure-9. 9. In the facts and the legal position which has been taken note of by this Court this writ application is dismissed as having no merit. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioners as indicated above to join their representative/union to pursue their relief which has been made in annexure-19 to the rejoinder of the writ application: 10. This writ application accordingly stands dismissed.