IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2464 of 2008()
1. C.T.ANTONY, S/O.LATE C.A.THOMA, AGED
... Petitioner
2. K.E.MOHANAN, S/O.LATE EASWARA PILLAI,
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD.,
3. GENERAL MANAGER,
4. CHIEF PERSONAL & ADMINISTRATION
For Petitioner :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :23/01/2009
O R D E R
J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. &
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.A.No.2464 of 2008
-------------------------
Dated this the 23th day of January, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Koshy, Ag.C.J.
The appellants herein are the appellants
in the writ petition, who wanted to increase the
age of retirement from 58 to 60 years.
2. The appellants were in employment of
Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited, a public
sector enterprise, having two units apart from
the Head Office at Mumbai. The appellants are
working at Ambalamugal in Kerala State. Ext.P1 is
the guidelines, which shows that Government had
decided to increase the age of retirement Board
level and below Board level employees in certain
public sector undertakings, from 58 to 60 years.
But, thereafter, it was decided to give up the
proposal for enhancement of age, except in profit
making companies. The 2nd respondent company was
one of the loss making companies and therefore,
it was referred to the BIFR. Therefore, the 2nd
respondent company cannot enhance the retirement
age of its employees. The BIFR has passed orders
W.A.NO.2464/08
:: 2 ::
releasing the company from its purview of
consideration. In February, 2008, the following
decisions were taken:
“In the meantime, several sick CPSEs have
started making profit and these CPSEs have
requested for enhancement of age of
retirement of its employees from 58 to 60
years. The matter has further been reviewed
by the Government and it has now been decided
that the Minister-in Charge of the
administrative Ministry/Department concerned
is empowered to approve the proposals of
CPSEs to enhance the age of retirement from
58 to 60 years, provided that —
(a) The CPSE concerned should as per its
audited annual accounts have made net
profits for the last 3 years
continuously and should have a
positive net worth during the last
three years.
(b) The CPSE has not availed any budgetary
support during the last 3 years and no
budgetary support will be availed by
the CPSE in future.
(c) The proposals are approved by the
Board of Directors of the CPSE
concerned and have the concurrence of
Financial Advisor of the concerned
administrative Ministry/ Department.”
3. That shows that 3 years accounts have
to be looked into and thereafter the Board can
decide the enhancement of the age to 60.
Admittedly, 6 central Public Sector undertakings
W.A.NO.2464/08
:: 3 ::
have decided to increase the age of its
employees. Even after the decision, the
Government has to consider the same. Since the
Board has not recommended enhancement of the age
of employees of the 2nd respondent, this court
cannot declare that the appellants are entitled
to retire only at the age of 60 years. It is
also submitted by the learned counsel for the
company that the company is on loss even now.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the unit at Ambalamugal is making profit and it
should be separately treated. Whether in one
unit alone, can retirement age be increased, is
to be decided by the Board. According to the
counsel for the 2nd respondent company, this unit
is running at loss.
4. It is contended by the appellants that
the retirement age of Board level employees of
the company has been enhanced, but the retirement
age of the below Board level employees of the
company has not been enhanced. It is clarified by
the counsel for the company that only 4 officers,
i.e. Chairman and Managing Director, Director
(Marketing) Director (Finance) and Director
W.A.NO.2464/08
:: 4 ::
Operation & Finance are permitted to continue
till they attain the age of 60 years. They are
approved by the Central Government but other
members of the company including Chief Executive
General Managers etc. are to retire at the age of
58 years, as the retirement in the company was
fixed at 58 years. This cannot be termed as
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. In
the above circumstances, we cannot issue a writ
of mandamus.
5. However, the appellants will be free
to file a representation to the company Board for
a favourable consideration.
Writ appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(J.B. KOSHY)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge