IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 10192 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : 14.07.2009
Datta Ram and others
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
State of Haryana and another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The services of the petitioners, who were employees of the
Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewell Corporation – respondent No.2
which was closed in the year 2002, were retrenched on 30.6.2002, after
paying them retrenchment compensation, as stipulated under Section 25-O
(8) of the Industrial Disputes Act. At that time, petitioner No.1 was 59 years
of age, while petitioners No.2 and 3 were of the age of 56 years. Under the
Government instructions dated 18.5.2001, some of the retrenched
employees of the respondent Corporation were given appointment on 25%
of the future vacancies in direct recruitment in Group `C’ and `D’ of the
Government Departments and State Public Sector and Cooperative Sector
Undertakings, by relaxing the age requirement upto the maximum age of 50
CWP No. 10192 of 2009 -2-
years for all categories. Since the petitioners were more than 50 years of
age, they could not be considered for recruitment on the vacancies arising in
the Government Departments. Thereafter, vide notification dated 21.6.2006
in supersession of the earlier policy dated 18.5.2001, the Government
framed a new policy to appoint by way of adjustment the regular retrenched
employees of the Boards/Corporations/Public Sector Undertakings/
Cooperative Federations etc. and Government Departments, who were
retrenched during the period from 1.3.2000 to 1.3.2005, who were less than
55 years of age as on 18.5.2006 against the available vacancies of direct
recruitment of Group `C’ and `D’ posts. Since the petitioners were more than
60 years of age as on 18.5.2006, therefore, they could not be given any
benefit under the second policy also. Vide another notification dated
1.2.2007, the Government further liberalized the scheme for adjustment of
Group `A’ and `B’ retrenched employees as well as for providing
compensation to them, in the following manner :
(i) To grant a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the family of retrenched employees
who had expired after retrenchment and who would otherwise
have been eligible for adjustment on 18th May, 2006 i.e. the
date of application of the present policy of adjustment of
retrenched employees.
(ii) To provide a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh each to those retrenched employees
who were over 55 years of age and less than 58 years of age as
on 18th May, 2006.
It appears that the object of this subsequent notification was to adjust Group
`A’ and `B’ retrenched employees as well as to provide compensation to
CWP No. 10192 of 2009 -3-
those employees, who could not get any benefit under the earlier policy.
However, the petitioners do not fall in any of these two categories, as their
age was more than 60 years as on 18.5.2006.
The petitioners have filed the instant petition for modifying the
notification dated 1.2.2007 to the extent that the cut off date for the
retrenched employees who were over 55 years and less than 58 years of age,
should be fixed as 30.6.2002 i.e. the date of retrenchment. It is further
prayed that the maximum age of 58 years, as mentioned in the notification,
should be 60 years for Group `D’ employees, which was the age of their
superannuation. It is the case of the petitioners that if the age of 60 years is
taken as on 30.6.2002, then they would be entitled for compenstion of Rs.
1.00 lakh each, under clause (ii) of the notification dated 1.2.2007.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit
in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. The date of
18.5.2006, being the cut off date, fixed in the notification dated 1.2.2007, is
not illegal and arbitrary. The fixing of age from 55 years to 58 years for the
purpose of granting of compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh, under the notification
dated 1.2.2007, also cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. There is no
justification and reason for fixing the cut off date as 30.6.2002, when the
policy was framed in the year 2006. The petitioners, who were 59 years and
56 years of age at the time of their retrenchment, were paid the retrenchment
compensation. Now, under the notification dated 1.2.2007, they cannot be
given any compensation on account of not adjusting them in the
CWP No. 10192 of 2009 -4-
employment. Even as per the Government instructions dated 18.5.2001, they
were not eligible for recruitment, because at that time, their age was more
than 50 years.
In view of the above, there is not merit in the instant petition
and the same is, hereby, dismissed.
July 14, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE