Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 46 (JHR)

Alamgir v. State of Jharkhand

2013-01-09

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ application, petitioner has claimed the benefit of enhanced retirement age up to 60 years on the basis of notification of the State Government dated 26.10.2004(Annexure-2) which according to him is applicable to employees of the Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation(J.S.M.D.C.) in terms of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Director of Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation held on 26.8.1972. Petitioner being the employee of J.S.M.D.C attained the age of 58 years on 30.11.2004 and as such claims to be entitled for the enhancement of age applicable to the State Government employees vide Annexure-2. 3. Respondents on the other hand have refuted the contention of the petitioner stating that the J.S.M.D.C being Government company took decision through its Board of Directors dated 20.12.2004 and resolved to enhanced the age of superannuation of the employees of the corporation from 58 years to 60 years made effective from the said date i.e. 20.12.2004. According to the respondents the decision of the Board of Director was sent for approval to the administrative department of J.S.M.D.C. i.e. Department of Mines and Geology which accorded its approval vide memo dated 20.4.2005(Annexure-B) with the condition that the corporation will have to bear the expenses through its own resources. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, however submitted that the corporation having adopted the service conditions of the State Government employees as per Annexure-1 is obliged to implement the decision of the State Government as contained in Annexure-2 made effective from 26.10.2004 which will entitle the petitioner to continue in service for further 2 years till the age of 60 years instead of his retirement on 30.112004. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the minutes of the meeting dated 20.12.2004 wherein Item no. 11/9 a decision was taken to grant benefit for increasing superannuation age at par with the Government employees by the Board of Directors of the corporation. 5. Counsel for the respondents however indicates by reading the said minutes under item number that the said decision was subject to the approval and implementation with the permission of the department of Mines, Government of Jharkhand and has been taken w.e.f. 20.12.2004 as per the meeting held on 20.12.2004 itself. Respondents have also referred to the decision of the Jharkhand High Court rendered in the case of Paresh Chandra Saha and others Vrs. Respondents have also referred to the decision of the Jharkhand High Court rendered in the case of Paresh Chandra Saha and others Vrs. State of Jharkhand in W.P.S. No. 190 of 2005 wherein it was observed that those employees who retired in between 31.1.2005 and 15.2.2005 shall be deemed to be continuing in service. By referring to the aforesaid observation of the Court the respondents, therefore, submit that even the benefit of enhanced age of 60 years was made effective from the 20.12.2004 and the High Court deemed it proper to allow this benefit to employees who were continuing in interregnum and were supposed to retire before 31.1.2005 and 15.2.2005 awaiting final decision of the State Government. 6. From the facts which is brought on record it is apparent that the petitioner retired on 30.11.2004 itself and decision of the respondent- Corporation was taken to grant benefit of enhancement of age on 20.12.2004 was made effective from the said date approved by the Respondent- State of Jharkhand subject to the condition that it would have to meet the expenses from its own resources. The respondent- Corporation, being an independent legal entity was required to take an informed decision depending upon its resources resolved in its meeting to give effect to the said increase from the particular date. This approach of the respondents also finds support from the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sureschandra Singh & others Vrs. Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. & others reported in (2004)1 SCC 592 , the relevant para 7 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- “The appellants assail the decision of the Board on the ground of violation of principles of equality. It is alleged that the Board-level employees were allowed to continue in service till the age of sixty and employees like the appellants who were below the Board level were forced to retire at the age of fifty-eight. In reply the respondents submitted that the Board-level employees could not be equated and compared with the other employees. It is alleged that the Board-level employees were allowed to continue in service till the age of sixty and employees like the appellants who were below the Board level were forced to retire at the age of fifty-eight. In reply the respondents submitted that the Board-level employees could not be equated and compared with the other employees. Wholetime directors, who are two in numbers, are directly appointed by the President of India for a fixed terns if five years that could be reviewed even earlier; and that other members of the Board are government servants and are nominees or representatives from various Ministries and are appointed by the President of India for a term of three years. In these circumstances we find that the Board of Directors themselves form a different class and cannot be compared with other employees in regard to conditions of service applicable to them. Allegation of discrimination is also raised by the appellants vis-a-vis employees of other corporations. Each public sector undertaking is an independent body/entity and is free to have its own service conditions as per law. However, all employees in FCIL who are working in its various units and divisions retire at the age of fifty-eight as per the relevant rules; and that even the future employees will retire at the age of fifty-eight. We also find that the employees of different corporations could not be treated alike since every corporation will have to take into account its separate circumstances so as to formulate its policy and consequently, the argument that there is discrimination of appellants vis-a-vis employees of other corporations also cannot be accepted. Thus, the appellants have failed on all grounds. The appeals stand dismissed”. 7. Further from the submissions of the parties it is also observed that the relevant amendment in the Bihar Service Code has been carried out in the year 2006 only under Rule 73. 8. In these facts and circumstances, this Court finds it proper not to interfere with the decision of the Respondent- Corporation and petitioner having retired prior to the date fixed by the Corporation and approved by the State Government is not entitled to claim benefit of enhanced age of 60 years as he retired on 30.11.2004. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.