Retirement age at 58 is justified – High court – Tribune News
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today
ruled that the decision to enhance the employees’ retirement age from 58
to 60 by the previous Congress government led by Bhupinder Singh Hooda
was an attempt to garner votes just before the Assembly elections; and
was not an honest decision.
The scathing observations on the
previous government’s conduct came as Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
upheld the Khattar government’s decision of reducing the age from 60 to
58.
Justice Dhindsa ruled: “The timing of
such decision cannot be lost on this court. The state Assembly elections
were around the corner. The Model Code of Conduct was on the verge of
being imposed. The decision to enhance the age of retirement and that
too in derogation of the relevant rule can only be seen as an attempt to
garner a particular vote bank…
“This court would have no hesitation in
holding that the action of the state government in reversing the earlier
decision of enhancing the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years
by terming the same to be not honest is well founded”, he said.
The Hooda Government had last year
increased the retirement age of the employees by two years to 60,
shortly before the October 15 Assembly election.
Lashing out at the previous regime, the Khattar Government had claimed that the decision was taken to gain political mileage.
In an affidavit submitted before the high court, the government had claimed that the decision was “not honest” and was taken even though no such demand or representation was received from any association or union of Haryana Government employees.
The affidavit by Secretary to Haryana
Government D Suresh said the Council of Ministers on its own decided
that the age was to be increased. The issue was not even placed before
the Finance Department for consideration, it was added.
The ruling came on a bunch of petitions
by Baljit Kaur and other employees. Among other things, they had raised
questions on the legality of council of ministers to take such
decisions.
The petitioners argued that the council
of ministers, headed by Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar, was
unconstitutional as it lacked required minimum numbers. The petitioners
claimed that the total strength of council of ministers was 10,
including the Chief Minister. But, in terms of Article 164(1-A) of the
Constitution, the number of ministers, including the Chief Minister, was
not to be less than 12.
Dealing one by one with the issues
raised by the petitioners, Justice Dhindsa asserted the provisions of
Article 164 (1-A) were mandatory to the extent that the strength of the
council of ministers, including the Chief Minister, was not to exceed 15
per cent of the total Members of the Legislative Assembly. It was not
with regard to a minimum number of ministers.
Justice Dhindsa added the decision
contained in the instructions dated August 26, 2014, for enhancing the
age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years “would not acquire the
character of a statutory rule”. “Such executive instructions cannot be
accepted to be a statutory amendment of the existing Rule governing the
age of retirement….. Accordingly, it is held that there is no right that
had come to vest in the petitioners to continue in service till the age
of 60 years on the strength of instructions, which are in derogation of
the relevant statutory rule.
Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa asserted
that the relationship between the government and its employees was not
“like an ordinary contract of service between a master and servant”.
Once appointed to a post or office, an employee’s rights and obligations
were determined by the statute, which may be framed by the government.
Justice Dhindsa added that the language
of the relevant rule was “clear and unambiguous”. “Every government
employee shall retire upon attaining 58 years of age and must not be
retained in service thereafter except in exceptional circumstances. Such
rule has not been amended till date”.
“This court does not find any infirmity
in the decision of the state government in reducing the age of
retirement of the petitioners from 60 years to 58 years,” Justice
Dhindsa concluded.
The state Assembly elections were around
the corner. The Model Code of Conduct was on the verge of being
imposed. The decision to enhance the age of retirement and that too in
derogation of the relevant rule can only be seen as an attempt to garner
a particular vote bank…. — HC Bench