AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.K. Sasidharan, J.—These two writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 16 November, 2007 in W.P. Nos. 380 and
640 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the challenge made to the resolution passed by the Board of Management of the Chennai Port Trust
reducing the age of superannuation from 60 to 58 years, was rejected.
BACKGROUND FACTS:
The appellants were the employees of the Chennai Port Trust. Originally, the age of retirement in the Port Trust was 58 years. In the year 1998,
the Central Government, pursuant to the report of the V Pay Commission, recommended raising the retirement age to 60 years, even in
autonomous bodies and organisations controlled by the Central Government. The said direction was implemented by the second respondent,
whereby, the retirement age was increased from 58 to 60 years. The revised regulation was published in the Official Gazette on 25 August, 1998.
Since the amendment was given retrospective effect, those employees, who had already attained the age of 58 years and who were continuing in
office under extension of service, were allowed to retire on completion of the period of extension. But the employees, who had attained the age of
58 years after May, 1998 were given two years extension and they were allowed to retire after attaining the age of 60 years.
While the matters stood thus, the Government of India appears to have taken a decision to roll back the age of retirement from 60 to 58 years,
in all the major ports in India with an intention to reduce the man power at the ports. A letter to that effect was issued by the Government of India
on 17 April, 2000 to all the Ports to implement the change in the matter of retirement age. This direction was implemented by the second
respondent Board, as per resolution No. 72 dated 31 August, 2000 and as per the said resolution it was decided to roll back the age of retirement
to 58 years. Subsequently, the Board of trustees of the Port Trust, as per resolution No. 89 dated 22.9.2000, decided to implement the reduction
in the retirement age with effect from 31 March, 2001, in view of the difficulties expressed in filling up of the vacancies in optional posts. The said
resolution was rejected by the Government of India. Subsequently, the second respondent Board took a decision to give effect to its decision to
roll back the age of retirement from 30 January, 2001.
According to the appellants, the decision taken by the Port Trust to roll back the age of retirement was not based on any reason as required u/s
125(1) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. No reasons had been assigned as to why there was a sudden change to roll back the age of
superannuation, which had been implemented only two years back. Since the appellants have already attained the age of 58 years, they were the
first slot to receive the brunt of the decision taken by the Board to reduce the age of retirement. In such circumstances, they have filed writ petitions
to quash the decision to reduce the retirement age for the purpose of continuing in office, till they attain the age of 60.
The writ petitions were resisted by the second respondent by filing counter. According to the second respondent, decision to reduce the
retirement age was taken in the interest of the Port, as the age of retirement fixed at 60 years, proved to be uneconomical. The Madras Port Trust
Employees'' (Retirement) Regulations was amended and such amended regulations were published on 5 January, 2001 and it came into effect from
31 January, 2001. Therefore, all those employees, who have reached the age of 58 years had to retire in accordance with the amended
regulations.
THE VIEWS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE:
The learned Single Judge, having found that certified standing orders were amended in tune with the service regulations, rejected the prayer on
the ground that all the other ports have implemented the decision taken by the Government of India. The learned Judge has also placed reliance on
the decisions of the Calcutta High Court as well as Bombay High Court in similar matters. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed.
SUBMISSIONS ON APPEALS:
The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that no material was produced by the second respondent to substantiate their contention that
the retirement age was reduced in the best interest of the Port. According to the learned Counsel, before reducing the retirement age, Port-Trust
was duly bound to conduct an in-depth study of the matter and it was not open to them to follow the directions of the Government of India in a
very mechanical manner, to the prejudice of the employees. Learned Counsel also contended that the decision to reduce the age from 60 to 58
years, caused substantial prejudice to the employees and in the absence of any valid explanation given by the Port Trust to sustain the decision, the
resolution was nothing but arbitrary and as such, the same is liable to be quashed.
The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Port-Trust justified the action taken by the second respondent to reduce the retirement
age. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the second respondent was bound to follow the directions of the Government of India, in view of
the mandatory provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act. Therefore, the appellants were not justified their contention that the second respondent
should not have followed the decision taken by the Government of India.
DISCUSSION AND RESOLUTION OF ISSUES:
There is no dispute that at the time of joining service by the appellants, retirement age was only 58 years. Therefore, knowing fully well that they
have to retire at the age of 58 years, the appellants have entered into the service of the Port-Trust. It was only long thereafter, the Government of
India in the light of the report submitted by the V Pay Commission, took a decision to increase the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years.
Accordingly, the Government amended Fundamental Rule 56 with prospective effect. There was a further recommendation made by the V Pay
Commission and that was for implementation of the age of retirement in respect of the employees of autonomous bodies, organisations and other
bodies controlled by the Central Government. It was only in such circumstances, the Government of India directed the Port-trust to amend its
service regulations increasing the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years. The appellants were very happy when the retirement age was increased
from 58 to 60 years. The Port Trust has not conducted any study, much less, financial study before enhancing the age from 58 to 60 years. The
appellants, being the employees of the Port-trust were also not in favour of such study as they were the ultimate beneficiaries. Subsequently, the
Government on the basis of relevant materials decided to roll back the age of retirement from 60 to 58 years and issued directions to all the ports
to implement the said decision.
The second respondent, having revised the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years at the instance of the Central Government, was bound to
comply with the further direction of the Central Government to reduce the retirement age to 58 years, after a period of three years. The second
respondent, in their counter, has also stated that before taking a decision to reduce the retirement age from 60 to 58 years, Port-Trust has
considered the financial condition of the trust. The second respondent, originally passed a resolution on 22 September, 2000 and as per the said
resolution, it was decided to implement reduction in the age with effect from 31 March, 2001. Section 124(1) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963
requires prior approval of the Central Government for implementation of resolutions. The Resolution dated 22 September, 2000, implementing the
reduction of age with effect from 31 March, 2001 was not acceptable to the Government of India. Accordingly, a fresh decision was taken by the
second respondent to give effect to its decision to rollback the age of retirement from 30 January, 2001.
The core question is whether the Port Trust, being the employer, should demonstrate with facts and figures to justify their action for reducing
the age of retirement.
When the appellants have joined the Port Trust Service, the age of retirement was 58 years. It is true that for a short span of time, the
employees enjoyed the benefits of higher retirement age, it was only when the Port-trust took a decision to roll back to 58 years consequent to the
decision taken by the Government of India, the employees like the appellants have raised objections against such decision.
The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 was enacted for the constitution of port authorities for major ports in India and to vest the administration,
control and management of such ports in such authorities. The Port Trust is a ""State"" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
The Central Government reserved its right to issue appropriate directions to the Port Trust. Section 125 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 gives
power to the Central Government to issue regulations or to amend the regulations. The major ports like the second respondent constituted as per
the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act are bound to comply with the directions of the Central Government. The decision taken by the Central
Government to reduce the age from 60 to 58 years was on the basis of relevant materials. The decision taken by the Government was not
challenged by the appellants. The second respondent was only implementing the direction issued by the Government of India u/s 125 of the Major
Port Trusts Act. However, there are materials in the counter to indicate that a study was also made by the second respondent before reducing the
age from 60 to 58 years.
Since the age of retirement was only 58 years originally and it was only by way of a revision, it was increased to 60 years and ultimately rolled
back to 58 years, the appellants cannot make any grievance. The employees would be justified in taking up the issues only in cases where their
accrued interest were taken away by amending the service regulations. The original age of retirement was only 58 years and it was only increased
to 60 and once again the earlier age was restored. The authority, who got power to increase the age of retirement is equally vested with the
authority to reduce the retirement age. Therefore, the appellant cannot be heard to say that the employer was not having the authority to reduce the
age of retirement and they should be permitted to alter the age of retirement only if sufficient materials are shown.
In B. Prabhakar Rao and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, , the Supreme Court observed that the Government has full power
to effect a change in the age of superannuation of its employees on relevant considerations.
In K. Nagaraj and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, , the Supreme Court indicated that a common scheme of general
application governing superannuation has to be evolved in the light of experience regarding performance levels of employees, the need to provide
employment opportunities to the younger sections of society and the need to open up promotional opportunities to employees at the lower levels
early in the career. The Supreme Court further observed thus.
...But, while resolving the validity of policy issues like the age of retirement, it is not proper to put the conflicting claims in a sensitive judicial
scale and decide the issue by finding out which way the balance tilts. That is an exercise which the administrator and the Legislature have to
undertake....
In P.U. Joshi and Others Vs. The Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others, , the Supreme Court held that the State was well within its
powers to amend, alter or to bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service. The observation reads thus:
...Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications
and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within
the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it
is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of
promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change
the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of
service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by
appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by
undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service,
as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of
the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and
except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no
right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.
The decision taken by the Central Government to revise the retirement age from 58 to 60 years was a policy decision. Similarly, the
subsequent decision reducing the age from 60 to 58 years was also a policy decision taken in the larger public interest. The Chennai Port Trust on
their own account also made an impact study before taking a decision to implement the revision suggested by the Central Government. Since the
original age of retirement was only 58 years, no prejudice was caused to the employees like the appellants on account of the decision to roll back
to the age of 58 years. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in rejecting the contentions raised on behalf of
the appellants. We do not see any reason to disagree with the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.