K.S. Anandram And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1436 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. As the facts and the issues arising for consideration in these two writ petitions are similar, I propose to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common judgment/order.

2. The main issue that is involved in both the writ petitions pertains to fixation of age of superannuation. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the age of retirement of the petitioners should be fixed at 60 years instead of 58 years. The petitioners were appointed by the National Council for Cooperative Training (National Cooperative Union of India). One of the appointment letters issued in respect of Dr. K.S. Anandram is placed on record which is dated 29.6.1993. In the said letter it is stated that the National Council for Cooperative Training has appointed the said petitioner as Direct Recruit Professor w.e.f. 15.9.1992. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the petitioner would continue to be governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment and the Rules and Regulations of the NCCT in force from time to time.

3. There cannot be any dispute that the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the service rules which are formulated and adopted by the National Council for Cooperative Training of the National Cooperative Union of India. A copy of the said Service Rules is placed on record by the petitioners themselves. In paragraph 1.1 of the said Rules it is stated that the aforesaid rules would be called the National Council for Cooperative Training (NCCT) of the National Cooperative Union of India (NCUI) Employees Services Rules, 1994. Sub-clause (1) thereof provides that the same would come into force from the date of issue after their approval by the National Council for Cooperative Training (National Cooperative Union of India) and Government of India and shall supersede all other rules on the subject in force in the Council. Clause 9 thereof provides that in case of retirement on superannuation/medical ground/compulsory retirement/voluntary retirement, the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 as amended from time to time shall apply. On the other hand Clause 11 deals wit superannuation and it provides that an employee would retire from the service of the Council on his attaining the age of 58 years in case of Groups 'A' and 'B' employees in Academic Cadre on the last day of the month in which he or she attains the age of 58 years and in case of non-academic Cadre employees in Groups 'A', 'B' and 'C' on his or her attaining the age of 58 years whereas the Group 'D' employees on his attaining the age of 60 years.

4. It was submitted that for all practical purposes the petitioners enjoyed all the benefits that are made available to the employees of the Union of India and that in view of the aforesaid position when the 5th Pay Commission recommended raising of the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years the same also becomes applicable to the case of the petitioners and therefore, the age of retirement of the petitioners now stood raised from 58 years to 60 years.

The records placed disclose that proposal for raising retirement age from 58 years to 60 years for the employees of NCCT in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission was also mooted by the Ministry of Agriculture as stated under letter dated 27.1.1999, a copy of the said letter is placed on record as Annexure P-12. In the aforesaid letter it is indicated that a resolution was passed in the XXXth meeting of the NCCT held on 18.12.1998 and in respect of the same it was stated that NCCT was set up by NCUI under its Bye-Law No. 16(A) with the prior approval of the Government of India and that the President of NCUI is the Chairman of NCCT and the Chief Executive of NCUI is the Director General and EVC of NCCT. It was also made clear in the said communication that there is organic link between NCCT and NCUI and therefore, NCCT is not a registered society and is not a distinct unit apart from NCUI and so existence of NCCT cannot be thought of in isolation of NCUI. Attention of the Chief Executive of the NCUI was drawn under the aforesaid communication to the earlier letter of the Ministry Dated 30.7.1998 that before any action to modify the retirement age is taken up a resolution to that effect need to have been passed in the Governing Body of the NCCT and therefore, clarification was sought for to indicate whether or not any such resolution was passed by the Governing Body or the General Body of NCUI. It was also clarified that merely by passing a resolution by the Committee of NCCT, that too by just six members present out of 30 members may not hold good for the purpose. It is disclosed from the records that no such resolution was passed by the duly constituted Governing Body or the General Body of the NCUI nor any approval was given by the Government of India to the aforesaid proposal for raising the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. No amendment was also brought in the aforesaid Service Rules at any point of time. Unless and until such a resolution valid in law is passed by the competent Authority and approved by the Central Government and amendment brought in the Service Rules governing the service conditions of the petitioners, it cannot be said that the said recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission automatically become applicable to the cases of the petitioners.

5. It transpires from the records that following the letter dated 27.1.1999 the Governing Council of NCUI met in its 109th meeting on 29.3.1999 and took the following decision:

"Agenda Item No. 11: Consideration of the letter from the Government of India regarding raising the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years for the employees of NCCT.

The Governing Council dropped the proposal for raising the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years for the employees of NCCT."

6. It is crystal clear from the aforesaid resolution that NCUI did not approve the proposal for enhancement of the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. Thus the request and the proposal of the NCCT for enhancement of the retirement age from 58 to 60 years was neither approved by NCUI nor by the Government of India.

7. I have already referred to Rule 11 of the Service Rules governing the service conditions of the petitioners. The said rule indicates that approval of the Government of India is necessary for amending the Service Rules in the matter and for enhancement of retirement age. Said position is also clear from the various documents placed on record whereunder Government's approval had been sought for. It is thus clearly established that unless and until Government of India approves the proposal the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted that retirement age stands raised to 60 years. My attention was also drawn to a Division Bench decision of Kerala High Court in Director General, National Council for Cooperative Training v. A. Ramakrishnan and Anr. (WA No. 2948/2000 disposed of on 24.11.2000) and also to the decision of Calcutta High Court in Writ Petition No. 19372(W)/1998, Badal Chandra Chakraborty v. Union of India and Ors., disposed of on 13.2.2001. Similar contentions as raised in the present writ petitions were also raised before the said High Courts. In the said decisions it was held that unless and until Government of India approved the proposal the petitioner has no legal right to continue in service beyond 58 years of age. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decisions of the Kerala High Court and Calcutta High Court. The petitioners were clearly governed by the service rules. Rule 11 thereof stipulates that employees like the petitioners would stand retired on completion of 58 years of age. No amendment was made to the said rules in accordance with law, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that they are required to be continued till they attain the age of 60 years.

8. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, it is observed that if any of the petitioners had served beyond the age of 58 years the pay and allowances paid to them shall not be recovered from them. In terms of the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petitions stand disposed of.