Mewa Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—This order shall dispose of C.W.P. No. 10510-CAT of 2011 filed by Mewa Singh; C.W.P. No. 13731-CAT of 2011 filed by Smt. Ranjit Sharma and C.W.P. No. 14493-CAT of 2011 filed by Smt. Harjinder Kaur Sandhu and Jag Mohan Sharma. In these three writ petitions, the petitioners are praying for quashing of the orders dated 19.01.2011 and 25.01.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal''), whereby three Original Applications filed by the petitioners, i.e., O.A. No. 835/PB/2009, O.A. No. 74/PB/2011 and O.A. No. 890/PB/2009, for setting aside the orders dated 19.8.2009, 1.11.2010 and 16.1.2010, retiring the petitioners (excepting petitioner No. 2-Jag Mohan Sharma in C.W.P. No. 14493-CAT of 2011, who will retire on 31.08.2015) on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 58 years, have been dismissed. Before the learned Tribunal, the case of the petitioners was that they should have been retired on superannuation after completing the age of 60 years on the basis of the Fundamental Rules 56, applicable to them from 6.3.2009 onwards as well as on the basis of Gazette of India notification No. 411 dated 6.3.2009.

Undisputedly, the petitioners were the employees of the Semi-Conductor Complex Limited, which was wound up due to incurring heavy losses. Later on, the Semi-Conductor Laboratory (for short `SCL'') was constituted as a Society on 1.9.2006 and it had offered employment to the surplus employees of the Semi-Conductor Complex Limited on certain terms and conditions, one of which relates to the age of superannuation as 58 years. The learned Tribunal, while relying upon the said agreement and a stipulation in the Memorandum that the age of retirement of such employee would be 58 years, dismissed the Original Applications filed by the petitioners and rejected their contention that since the retirement age of Central Government employees had been raised from 58 years to 60 years, their age of retirement should also be raised, on the plea that the petitioners were the employees of an autonomous organization, but were not the Central Government employees. One similarly situated employee, namely, Vijay Singh Bhandari filed O.A. No. 1004/PB/2010 challenging the rejection of his claim to be retired on attaining the age of 58 years. The said Original Application was dismissed on the basis of the orders dated 19.01.2011 passed by the Tribunal in the present case. The said Vijay Singh Bhandari challenged the said order by filing CWP No. 13367-CAT of 2011, which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 28.07.2011 while observing as under:-

4... The application of the Fundamental Rules to the employees of ''SCCL'', which was running into huge financial losses, would not result into changing the condition of service raising their age of retirement to 60 years, especially when in 2006 they have signed the memorandum accepting the age of retirement as 58 years. The respondents had approved the memorandum dated 16.6.2006 along with Item at Sr. No. 28, specifying the age of superannuation at 58 years, in its meeting held on 30.8.2006. The Management Council of ''SCL'' further resolved that to the extent no specific provision has been made, the Fundamental Rules and the Supplementary Rules along with other service rules would be applicable to the ''SCL''(R-3 and R-4).

The respondents also sought a clarification from the Government of India, Department of Space with regard to the age of superannuation of its employees. On 16.10.2009 (P-11), the Chairman, SCL Management Council has stated that in so far as the age of superannuation for employees of the ''SCL'' is concerned it would not be as per the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules until the ''SCL'' amend its rules concerning the age of retirement, it will continue to be at 58 years. Therefore, we are of the view that no legal right of the petitioner is found to be infringed. The writ petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed.

A review application filed by the petitioner in that case was also dismissed on 19.09.2011. Since a Division Bench of this Court has upheld the decision dated 12.5.2011 rendered by the Tribunal, we do not differ with the decision already taken by the said Division Bench. Thus, for the same reasoning, we also dismiss these petitions.