Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1106 (KAR)

Ramachandran K. v. State of Karnataka

2013-09-16

RAVI MALIMATH

body2013
ORDER Ravi Malimath, J.—The petitioner was an employee of the third respondent who retired on 31.05 2009. The case sought to be made out by him is that in terms of Regulation-30 of the Karnataka Silk Marketing Board Limited (Staff) Regulations, 1979, an employee shall retire from service on attaining the age of 55 years. By a resolution dated 06.06.1991, the same was enhanced from 55 to 58 years. The first respondent-State by its order dated 28.07.2008 vide Annexure-J to the writ petition, enhanced the age of retirement of Government employees from 58 to 60 years. Thereafter, the second respondent wrote to the third respondent to take steps to enhance the age of retirement of Government employees from 58 to 60 years. The third respondent in terms of its board resolution dated 06.12.2008, declined to enhance the retirement age. 2. Aggrieved by the same, some of the employees of the respondent-board filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 14280/2008 and connected matters. By an order dated 29.07.2009, the petition was allowed. It was held that the respondent-Board would be obliged to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years and in case the Board seeks exemption, it is for the State to grant exemption for good reason, Representations were made by the respondent to enhance the retirement age. 3. Subsequent to the orders passed in the writ petition, the State Government passed an order dated 17.12.2009 extending the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years, prospectively so far as the respondent company is concerned. Questioning the same, on the ground that the age of retirement should be from 28.7.2008 the present petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Government granting enhancement of age prospectively is erroneous. That the age of the retirement should be made applicable from the date of the earlier Government Order namely, w.e.f. 28.07.2008. It is on that date, that the policy decision of the Government was implemented and the age of retirement of the employees of the State Government and local bodies was enhanced from 58 to 60 years. Therefore, to presently grant the enhancement only from 17.12.2009 is opposed to Law. 5. Shri. Somashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 and 4 defends the impugned action. He contends that the respondent is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Therefore, to presently grant the enhancement only from 17.12.2009 is opposed to Law. 5. Shri. Somashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 and 4 defends the impugned action. He contends that the respondent is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Therefore, all decision would be taken by its board. That the State Government did not find favour with the same. The matter was placed before the Board. The Board considering all the representations, passed a resolution dated 06.12.2008, vide Annexure-L to retain the age of 58 years for retirement. 6. Thereafter, in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the matter was placed for consideration before the Cabinet of the State Government. The Cabinet in terms of its decision vide Annexure-P-3A filed along with the statement of objections, decided to grant the age of retirement with prospective effect. Therefore, the respondents are bound by the decision taken by the Government. Under these circumstances, there is no error in holding the retirement prospectively. 7. Shri. Raghavendra G. Gayatri, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 defends the impugned order. He contends that the benefit of the order vide Annexure-J dated 28.07.2008, is not extendable to the petitioners. That even in terms of Annexure-K extending the same to the other local boards etc., could not be applicable to the petitioner herein. That an independent decision would have to be taken so far as the respondent-board is concerned. The same has been taken in view of the cabinet decision. 8. Heard learned counsels and perused the material on record. 9. The primary contention of the petitioner is based on the government order dated 28.07.2008, Annexure-J to the writ petition. In terms whereof all the State Government employees as well as the local bodies and persons employed in the aided institutions were extended the benefit. None other had the benefit of the said decisions. Therefore, the policy decision of the State Government, was sought to be extended only to the Government servants and local bodies and employees of aided institution and none else. Subsequently, by the order dated 13.12.2008, the same was extended to public undertakings of the State Government. Hereto respondent no. 3 does not fit into the requirements of the State Government order. 10. Subsequently, by the order dated 13.12.2008, the same was extended to public undertakings of the State Government. Hereto respondent no. 3 does not fit into the requirements of the State Government order. 10. Admittedly, the status of the third respondent is that it is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act 1954. The company is run by its Board of Directors with the majority of Board of Directors being the Government nominees. Notwithstanding the same, it is the decision of the board that runs the company. Such being the case, in view of the decision taken by the Government, the matter was placed before the Board. In terms of Annexure-L, the board of directors resolved to retain the age of retirement as 58 years. 11. Thereafter in terms of the order passed in W.P. No. 14280/2008, the learned Single Judge further held that until and unless the orders have been approved by the Government in terms of Karnataka Government Transaction of Business Rules, 1977 such orders are unsustainable. Consequent upon the findings of the learned Single Judge that the approval of the Government is a must, the matter was placed for consideration before the Cabinet. In terms of Annexure-R-3A the Cabinet has taken a decision to grant the enhancement of age prospectively. The cabinet decision is dated 03.12.2009. Consequently, the Government Order has been issued on 17.12.2009, which is in terms of approval granted by the Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is opposed to the very policy of the Government. It is that has taken the decision to grant the enhancement of retirement age prospectively. Therefore to contend that the Government order passed earlier dated 28.07.2008 vide Annexure-J and the order dated 13.08.2008 vide Annexure-K is applicable to the respondent, cannot be accepted. 12. The decision having been taken by the Government and as published in the impugned notification dated 17.12.2009, is purely in accordance with law. It cannot be said that grounds of parity exists and the that petitioner be considered on par with the employees, of the State Government or employees of the Board or aided institutions. It is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act 1956. Under these circumstances, I do not find any error in granting the retirement age prospectively from the date of the impugned order. Under these circumstances, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Rule discharged.