Delhi High Court
Kailash Singh vs Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 2 March, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 02.03.2012
+ W.P.(C) No. 1241/2012
KAILASH SINGH ... Petitioner
versus
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Adv. with Mr Subodh K. Pathak,
Mr Rohit Agarwal, Advs.
For the Respondents: Ms Navratan Choudhary with Mr Hardile Meena,
Mr Titasha Banerjee, Advs.for R-1.
Mr S.B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv. with Ms Sujata Kashyap, Adv.
Mr Ram Niwas, Legal Assistant in Deptt. DTTDC/ R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)
CM No. 2686/2012
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (C) No. 1241/2012 & CM No. 2687/2012
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 312/2011,
whereby the petitioner's said original application was dismissed.
2. Before the Tribunal the petitioner had contended that the retirement age of 60
years ought to have been applied to him on the date when he was superannuated, i.e, on
31.03.2010. According to him the applicable age for retirement was 60 years and not 58
years.
3. However, the Tribunal, disagreeing with the contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner held that the age of retirement as per the extant rules was 58 years and not 60
years as alleged by the petitioner. It further held that the applicable rule on the date of
retirement is what has to be seen and not a subsequent rule whereby the age of retirement
was increased from 58 to 60 years.
4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner attained the age of 58 years on 31.03.2010.
If as per the rules the age of superannuation was 58 years on that date then he has been
rightly superannuated with effect from 31.03.2010. However, if the age of
superannuation as per the rules was 60 years on that date then he would be entitled to be
reinstated.
5. We find that pursuant to the 5th Pay Commission recommendations the DTTDC
(Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation) had passed a resolution on
28.06.1999 increasing the retirement age of its employees from 58 years to 60 years.
Subsequently, a circular was also issued to this effect on 02.11.1999. However, the
government had taken a decision on 25.09.2001 to roll back this increase in the
superannuation age from 60 to 58 years. This was immediately implemented by the
DTTDC by a resolution of 25.09.2001 itself and as such as per the said resolution, the
retirement age of 60 years was sought to be rolled back to 58 years. Shortly thereafter the
Government of NCT of Delhi, on reconsideration, decided to keep the roll back in
abeyance and this is evident from a circular dated 28.09.2001. Unfortunately for the
petitioner, no such resolution was passed by the DTTDC keeping the roll back in
abeyance. It is, thereafter, that on 31.03.2010 the petitioner superannuated inasmuch as
he had attained the age of 58 years. On 08.11.2010 the age of superannuation of the
DTTDC employees was once again raised from 58 to 60 years with effect from
02.11.2010. Since the petitioner had already retired by then, this increase in the
superannuation age from 58 to 60 years was not applicable to him.
6. We may point out that clause 10.14 (a) of the DTTDC Staff Service Rules 1986
provided for Superannuation, Extension of Service and Invalidation. In keeping with the
aforementioned developments and resolutions, the said rule was amended in 1999, 2001
and 2010. The said rule as it stood on each such amendment reads as under:-
"(a) Every employee shall superannuate from service on the afternoon of
the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years; provided
that an employee whose date of birth is the first day of a month shall retire
from service on the afternoon of the last day of preceding month on
attaining the age of 60 years. No extension in the service will be allowed
beyond the age of superannuation."
"(a) Every employee shall superannuate from service on the afternoon of
the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years. Provided
that an employee whose date of birth is the first day of a month shall retire
from service on the afternoon of the last day of proceeding month on
attaining the age of 58 years."
"(a) Every employee shall superannuate from service on the afternoon of
the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years. Provided
that an employee whose date of birth is the first day of a month shall retire
from service on the afternoon of the last day of preceding month on
attaining the age of 60 years"
(underlining added)
7. As can be seen from the above, in 1999 the amendment that was brought about in
the said rule was to increase the age of superannuation to 60 years. This was further
amended in 2001 with effect from 01.10.2001 whereby the superannuation age was
reduced to 58 years. Ultimately, in 2010 the said clause was again amended whereby the
age of superannuation was increased to 60 years but with effect from 02.11.2010. Thus,
the position that obtains is that as per the rule prevalent on 31.03.2010, which is the date
on which the petitioner attained the age of 58 years, the age of superannuation was 58
years. Consequently, he has been correctly superannuated on that date. It is the rule
prevalent on the date of superannuation which shall apply. The petitioner sought
retrospective application of the rule which was amended in 2010 but, the rule itself was
amended with effect from 02.11.2010, prospectively. Therefore, there is no question of
the petitioner claiming any benefit under the amendment of 2010.
8. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in the petition and the same is
dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V.K. JAIN, J
MARCH 02, 2012
kb
