Delhi High Court
Dr. M. Velayudhan Nair vs Union Of India & Anr. on 18 May, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 8461/2014
%
18th May, 2015
DR. M. VELAYUDHAN NAIR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.K.aggarwal, Adv. with
Petitioner in person.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Ms.
Saroj Bidawat and Mr. J.P.Sharma,
Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Rajinder Nishal and Mr. Asish
Nishal, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, petitioner who was working with the respondent no.2/National
Museum Institute of History of Art, Conservation and Museology (Deemed
University) as Professor (Conservation), seeks the relief that he should be
retired not at the age of 62 years on 31.1.2013 but that he should be retired at
WP(C) 8461/2014 Page 1 of 3
the age of 65 years in view of the circular dated 4.4.2007 of the University
Grants Commission which attached therewith the circular dated 23.3.2007 of
the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD).
2. A reading of the circular of the Ministry of HRD dated
23.3.2007 shows that the issue of increase of age of retirement is with
respect to centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education
under the Ministry of HRD i.e not to any other centrally funded institution in
higher and technical education under any other ministry except the Ministry
of HRD. Admittedly, the respondent no.2 is under the Ministry of Culture
and not under the Ministry of HRD. Therefore, the circular dated 23.3.2007
of the Ministry of HRD will not ipso facto apply to the respondent no.2
which is under the Ministry of Culture of the Union of India/respondent
no.1.
3. Petitioner in this case retired at the age of 62 years on
31.1.2013. Respondent no.1/Ministry of Culture only subsequently vide its
decision dated 20.10.2014 enhanced the age of retirement to 65 years with
prospective effect i.e if a person who retired prior to 20.10.2014, such a
person/employee of the respondent no.2 would not be entitled to the benefit
of higher retirement age up to 65 years.
WP(C) 8461/2014 Page 2 of 3
4. It is in the exclusive privilege of the government to decide what
should be the age of retirement and from when should the enhanced age of
retirement be applicable. Courts do not substitute this opinion of the
administration by changing the date fixed of retirement by the government
as this Court is ill-equipped to decide the validity of facts with respect to
what should be the age of retirement which is purely an administrative
decision. It has been rightly pointed out in the counter affidavit of the
respondent no.1 that the process of consultation with different departments
takes time and only after various factors and various suggestions of different
departments are considered including with respect to financial implications,
that it is only thereafter that the issue of age of retirement is decided.
5. In view of the above, since the petitioner retired on 31.1.2013 at
the age of 62 years, and the decision to enhance the age up to 65 years came
into effect subsequently and prospectively from 20.10.2014, petitioner
cannot get the benefit of higher age of retirement.
6. Dismissed.
MAY 18, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
