Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal Burman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 August, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 31 st OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 27566 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
BABULAL BURMAN, S/O MALLE RAM BURMAN, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RECENTLY RETIRED
FROM SERVICES OF MINING CORPORATION, R/O
VILLAGE MAHADEVA, NEAR J. P. SCHOOL WARD NO.
30, SATNA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHIJIT BHOWMIK - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
MINERAL RESOURCES MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL, (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH MINING CORPORATION
LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PARYAVAS BHAWAN, BLOCK A, 2 ND FLOOR,
ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL, (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M.P. STATE MINING
CORPORATION LIMITED, PARYAVAS BHAWAN,
BLOCK- A 2ND FLOOR, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ADITYA KHANDEKAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 &
3)
(MS. SHIKHA SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT-STATE OF
M.P.)
WRIT PETITION No. 27569 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
B.D.KHARE, S/O SHRI GOMTI PRASAD KHARE, AGED
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 9/1/2023
4:15:25 PM
2
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RECENTLY RETIRED
FROM SERVICES OF MINING CORPORATION, R/O SANT
NAGAR GHORDANG, SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHIJIT BHOWMIK - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
MINERAL RESOURCES MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL, (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH MINING CORPORATION
LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PARYAVAS BHAWAN, BLOCK A, 2 ND FLOOR,
ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL, (MADHYA PRADESH).
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M.P. STATE MINING
CORPORATION LIMITED, PARYAVAS BHAWAN,
BLOCK- A 2ND FLOOR, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI ADITYA KHANDEKAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2
&3)
(MS. SHIKHA SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT-STATE OF
M.P.)
WRIT PETITION No. 27570 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
KEDARNATH RAWAT, S/O LATE SHRI MANOHAR
RAWAT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RECENTLY RETIRED FROM SERVICES OF MINING
CORPORATION, R/O VILLAGE AND POST PACHOKHAR,
THANA AND TEHSIL CHURHAT, DISTT. SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHIJIT BHOWMIK - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
MINERAL RESOURCES MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL, (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 9/1/2023
4:15:25 PM
3
2. MADHYA PRADESH MINING CORPORATION
LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PARYAVAS BHAWAN, BLOCK A, 2 ND FLOOR,
ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL, (MADHYA PRADESH).
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M.P. STATE MINING
CORPORATION LIMITED, PARYAVAS BHAWAN,
BLOCK- A 2ND FLOOR, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ADITYA KHANDEKAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 &
3)
(MS. SHIKHA SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT-STATE OF
M.P.)
WRIT PETITION No. 27573 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
B.L. PATEL, S/O SHRI C.V. PATEL, AGED ABOUT 60
YEAR S , OCCUPATION:- RECENTLY RETIRED FROM
SERVICES OF MINING CORPORATION R/O. MINING
CAMPUS, THANDLA ROAD, MEGHNAGAR, DISTRICT
JHABUA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ABHIJIT BHOWMIK - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
MINERAL RESOURCES MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL, (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH MINING CORPORATION
LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PARYAVAS BHAWAN, BLOCK A, 2 ND FLOOR,
ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL, (MADHYA PRADESH).
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, M.P. STATE MINING
CORPORATION LIMITED, PARYAVAS BHAWAN,
BLOCK- A 2ND FLOOR, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ADITYA KHANDEKAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 &
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 9/1/2023
4:15:25 PM
4
3)
(MS. SHIKHA SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT-STATE OF
M.P.)
T h is petition coming on for admission/hearing this day, t h e court
passed the following:
ORDER
Regard being had to the similitude of the question involved, on the joint
request of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are analogously
heard and decided by this common order.
2. The challenge is mounted in these writ petitions to the orders,
whereby the petitioners were retired on attaining the age of 60 years.
3. The singular ground raised by the petitioners is that Finance
Department of State of M.P. by circular dated 27.4.2018 decided to enhance
the age of Class-III Government Servants from 60 to 62 years and left it open
to the Government Corporations to take appropriate decision in this regard in
accordance with law. In the result, the employees of the State Government
continued till 62 years of age. The petitioners were retired on 31.8.2018 and
thereafter by an order dated 6.10.2018 their employer (Mining Corporation)
decided to enhance the age to 62 years but made it clear that this order will be
applicable from the date of its issuance i.e. 6.10.2018.
4. Shri Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is
arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioners have not committed any error if
they attained the age of 60 years before 06.10.2018. They should not have been
put to a comparative disadvantageous position qua the similarly situated
employees, who were due to retire after 6.10.2018.
5. Shri Khandekar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3
opposed the prayer.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 9/1/2023
4:15:25 PM
6. No other point is pressed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
8. The decision of the Finance Department dated 27.4.2018 regarding
enhancement of age is admittedly not automatically applicable to the employees
of M.P. State Mining Corporation Ltd. The said Corporation took a conscious
decision to enhance the age w.e.f. 6.10.2018 only. This order dated 6.10.2018
and cut of date so mentioned in the said order is not subject matter of challenge
before before this Court. Withstanding this order, no fault can be found if the
petitioners were retired on attaining the age of 60 years.
9. Even otherwise, it is the prerogative of the employer and is a
managerial function to decide the age of superannuation of its employees. In
absence of establishing any legal, vested, statutory or constitutional right,
petitioners' prayer to continue upto 62 years can not be accepted. I find support
in my view from the judgment of Supreme Court. In the case of New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority and another Vs. B.D. Singhral and
others (2021 SCC OnLine SC 466) in Paras -22, 23 and 24, it was held as
under :-
"22. Whether the age of superannuation should be
enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been
taken to enhance the age of superannuation, the date
with effect from which the enhancement should be made
falls within the realm of policy. The High Court in
ordering that the decision of the State government to
accept the proposal to enhance the age of
superannuation must date back to 29 June 2002 has
evidently lost sight of the above factual background,
more specifically (i) the rejection of the original
proposal on 22 September 2009; and (ii) the judgment
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 9/1/2023
4:15:25 PM
of the Division Bench dated 17 January 2012 refusing to
set aside the order rejecting the proposal on 22
September 2009 which has attained finality. But there is
a more fundamental objection to the basis of the
decision of the High Court. The infirmity in the
judgment lies in the fact that the High Court has trenched
upon the realm of policy making and has assumed to
itself, jurisdiction over a matter which lies in the
domain of the executive. Whether the age of
superannuation should be increased and if so, the date
from which this should be effected is a matter of policy
into which the High Court ought not to have entered.
23. The factual reasons which the High Court has
indicated are specious. The High Court has termed the
decision to give prospective effect to the enhancement
of the age of superannuation from 30 September 2012 as
arbitrary on the ground that the government should have
"acted instantly" when the resolution was received from
NOIDA, and that there was no justification not to grant
retrospective effect when the resolution had been
received "more than three years back". Both these
factors are erroneous. As a matter of fact, the resolution
of the Board of NOIDA dated 9 July 2012 (at its 176th
meeting) was forwarded to the State government on 17
July 2012 and a decision was taken in about two months
from the date of receipt of the proposal. The High
Court's observation on the delay of three years in taking
a decision on the resolution of NOIDA is in reference to
the 2005 resolution, which was rejected on 22
September 2009. As stated above, the Government
resolution of 2012 was impugned before the High
Court, and the 2009 rejection order had attained finality
in view of the judgment of the division bench of the
High Court on 17 January 2012 which was not
challenged before this court.
2 4 . Whether the decision to increase the age of
superannuation should date back to the resolution
passed by NOIDA or should be made effective from the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 9/1/2023
4:15:25 PM
date of the approval by the State government was a
matter for the State government to decide. Ultimately, in
drawing every cut-off, some employees would stand on
one side of the line while the others would be
positioned otherwise. This element of hardship cannot
be a ground for the High Court to hold that the decision
was arbitrary. When the State government originally
decided to increase the age of superannuation of its own
employees from fifty-eight to sixty years on 28
November 2001, it had left the public sector
corporations to take a decision based on the financial
impact which would result if they were to increase the
age of superannuation for their own employees."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Similarly in recent judgment delivered on August 25th, 2023 passed
by Apex Court in Dr. Prakashan M.P. and others Vs. State of Kerala and
other in Civil Appeal No.7580 of 2012, it was held as under :-
"17. Such a decision lies exclusively within the domain of
the Executive. It is for the State to take a call as to
whether the circumstances demand that a decision be
taken to extend the age of superannuation in respect of a
set of employees or not. It must be assumed that the State
would have weighed all the pros and cons before arriving
at any decision to grant extension of age. As for the aspect
of retrospectivity of such a decision, let us not forget,
whatever may be the cut-off date fixed by the State
Government, some employees would always be left out in
the cold. But that alone would not make the decision bad;
nor would it be a ground for the Court to tread into matters
of policy that are best left for the State Government to
decide. The appellants herein cannot claim a vested right
to apply the extended age of retirement to them
retrospectively and assume that by virtue of the
enhancement in age ordered by the State at a later date,
they would be entitled to all the benefits including the
monetary benefits flowing from G.O. dated 9th April,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 9/1/2023
4:15:25 PM
2012, on the ground of legitimate expectation.
18. Pertinently, similar pleas as taken by the respondents-
employees herein were raised in the case of NOIDA
(supra) where the employees had sought to invoke the
principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate
expectation for increasing the age of superannuation
retrospectively and were shot down as inapplicable. For
taking this view, reliance was placed on Monnet Ispat and
Energy Limited. Vs. Union of India13 wherein this Court
had opined that if a communication issued was a proposal
or a mere recommendation, the principle of promissory
estoppel will not apply for the simple reason that for
invoking the said principle, there must be a promise and
based on the said promise, the party concerned ought to
have acted to its prejudice. In the NOIDA case (supra),
this Court had outrightly turned down the argument
advanced by the respondent-employees therein that the
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation would come into play.
It was held that the said doctrine cannot have a place
when enhancement of the age of superannuation is "a
public function" that is governed by the provisions of the
Statute and the relevant service regulations. The position
is the same in the present case."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. In view of foregoing analysis, no fault can be found in the action of
the employer in retiring the petitioners at the age of 60 years.
12. The petitions are dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL)
JUDGE
bks
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Signing time: 9/1/2023
4:15:25 PM
