Telangana High Court
R. Murali, S/O. Late Narayana Good, vs Hmt Machine Tools Ltd., on 12 September, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 30320, 31195, 34275, 34410 of 2013,
2222, 2371, 2540, 8818, 13838, 39436 of 2014,
4841, 23944, 23358, 27959, 23029, 23616, 23969, 27582,
19483, 8324, 31520, 27585 of 2015
3263, 6957 and 10625 of 2016
COMMON ORDER:
Challenge in all these Writ Petitions is to the
inaction of respondents in implementing Office Orders No. 4/13
dated 30.04.2013 and 07/13 dated 06.06.2013 issued by HMT
Limited, Registered Office, HMT Bhavan, Bellary Road,
Bangalore for enhancing age of retirement of petitioner to 60
years. Vide said Office Orders, the age of superannuation in
respect of the employees of HMT Limited is enhanced from 58 to
60 years with effect from 18.04.2013 by way of amendment to
Rule 24.2(a) of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules of the
Company.
2. Heard Sri P. Giri Krishna and Sri A. Saidulu,
learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Gade Praveen Kumar,
learned Deputy Solicitor General on behalf of Government of
India and Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of the respondent Company.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Writ
Petition No. 23029 of 2015 are taken up for consideration.
4. The case of petitioner is that, petitioner joined
service on 01.01.1983 in HMT Limited at Hyderabad as Coupon
Vendor, promoted as Worker Supervisor in 2005 and since then,
has been working as Worker Supervisor-(WS-I) Accounts with
Ticket No.4679 in HMT Machine Tools Limited at Hyderabad. It
is stated that his date of birth is 05.07.1957 and his retirement
would be on 31.07.2015 (58 years).
Petitioner contends that when he joined service,
HMT Machine Tools Limited does not exist and it was HMT
Limited only. In 1998, the 3rd respondent - Government of India
had taken a policy decision vide Office Memorandum dated
19.05.1998 to enhance the age of superannuation / retirement
from 58 to 60 years. It is stated that since the said benefit was
being adopted by most of the public-sector undertakings, HMT
limited had also extended the same to its employees. However,
in 2000, HMT Limited formed three subsidiaries i.e. HMT
Watches Limited, HMT Machine Tools Limited and HMT Chinar
Watches Limited. Petitioner was transferred to HMT Machine
Tools Limited by proceedings dated 14.06.2001 with effect from
01.04.2001 without any change in service conditions and
without break in service.
It is further stated that in October, 2002, the 3rd
respondent, in view of the then financial situation of HMT
Limited and its subsidiaries and also similarly-placed public-
sector undertakings and enterprises, had taken a policy
decision and directed all the public-sector undertakings which
were making profit marginally to have a roll back in the age of
superannuation from 60 to 58 years and accordingly, the age of
superannuation in HMT Limited and in its five units has been
reduced from 60 to 58 years. Petitioner's case is that HMT
Limited has about five subsidiaries located at Bangalore
(Karnataka), Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh), Kalamassery
(Kerala), Pinjore (Haryana) and Ajmer (Rajastan) and the service
conditions and pay scales of the employees of the above 5
organs / units of HMT Ltd. is one and the same.
While the matter stood thus, the 3rd respondent
again had taken a decision to enhance the retirement age of
employees of HMT Limited from 58 to 60 years as part of Revival
Plan Proposal of HMT Limited approved by Cabinet Committee
on Economic Affairs (CCEA) during its meeting held on
18.04.2013. The 2nd respondent had also issued Office Order
No.04/13 dated 30.04.2013 implementing the said decision;
followed by Office Order No.07/13 dated 06.06.2013
implementing the age of superannuation as 60 years with effect
from 14.05.2013 by bringing amendment to Rule 24.2(a) of the
Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules of the Company. However,
the 1st respondent has not implemented the same in the unit at
Hyderabad. Consequently, by letters dated 14.06.2015 and
15.07.2015, the 1st respondent informed petitioner that he
would be retiring on attaining the age of superannuation of 58
years on the After Noon of 31.07.2015.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri P. Giri Krishna
submits that the 1st respondent failed to see that petitioner
initially joined in service in HMT Limited and the service
conditions of employees of HMT Limited are one and the same in
all the units of HMT Limited. The letter dated 14.06.2001 makes
it clear that even after transfer of petitioner to HMT Machine
Tools Limited, his service conditions are not changed from that
of HMT Limited, as such he is entitled for enhancement of age of
superannuation, stresses learned counsel. According to the
learned counsel, earlier, on two occasions, when the 3rd
respondent had taken a policy decision amending the age of
superannuation, HMT Limited had applied the same to
employees in all the five units. He emphasizes that in view of
the clearance by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs
(CCEA), the age of retirement which was enhanced from 58 to
60 years is applicable to all the employees of HMT Limited,
hence, directing petitioner to retire at the age of 58 years is
illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 18409 of
2018 (Smt. K.J. Vijayamma v. HMT Limited), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.T. Shastri 1 and Balwant
Rai Saluja v. Air India Limited 2.
6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st
respondent - HMT Machine Tools Limited, which is a subsidiary
company of HMT Limited, Bangalore, the Assistant General
Manager-HR stated that pursuant to the policy of the 3rd
respondent and direction of Ministry of Heavy Industries and
Public Enterprises, to reduce the age of superannuation from 60
to 58 years in respect of employees as well as Board Level
Executives for the PSUs, who are making marginal profits and
(1990) 1 SCC 509
(2014) 9 SCC 407
/or loss-making, the Board of Directors of the respondent
Company decided to reduce the age to 58 years. Clause 24.2 of
the HMT Machine Tools Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal
Rules have been amended in accordance with the direction of
the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries and
Public Enterprises vide letter dated 28.10.2002 and in so far as
the workers are concerned, Standing Orders have been modified
by following the procedure prescribed by the Certifying Officer
under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad and the
Appeals filed by the Unions also stood dismissed by the Deputy
Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) -cum- the Appellate
Authority under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946 confirming the order of Certifying Authority and
communicated the same by letter dated 30.11.2004. This being
the case, it is not open to petitioner to challenge the impugned
notice and relieving letters, which are in tune with the
amendment as certified by the authorities. It is stated further
that the Office Order dated 30.04.2013 of the HMT Limited
cannot be made applicable to the HMT Machine Tools Limited,
which has separate and independent CDA Rules and Standing
Orders governing the service conditions of its employees. It is
also open to petitioner to challenge and/or question the policy
decision of the Government of India and / or certifying the
amendment of Standing Orders of the Certifying Officer IE
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and Regional Labour Commissioner
(Central) and dismissal of the Appeal made by Recognized
Unions confirming the order of Certifying Authority for
amendment of reducing the age of superannuation from 60 to
58 years and there is no further change of Standing Order, thus
the age of superannuation was reduced from 60 to 58 years by
following the procedure prescribed and without assailing those
orders, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
It is stated that the respondent Company is a
government Company as defined under Section 617 of the
Companies Act, 1956 and the respondent is subject to the
directives of policies of the Government of India and is subject
to the control of its Administrative Ministry, namely, viz.,
Ministry of Heavy Industries and public Enterprises,
Department of Heavy Industries. It is further stated that all
units located in several states have rolled back the age of
superannuation from 60 to 58 years. The main contention of
this respondent is that the office orders dated 30.04.2013 and
06.06.2013 are applicable only to the employees of HMT
Limited, Holding Company and its units but not to subsidiary
companies or to their units; HMT Machine Tools Limited is a
unit of HMT Machine Tools Limited, Bangalore, which is a
Subsidiary Company of HMT Limited. The Managing Director of
HMT Machine Tools limited, Bangalore has already issued a
Circular dated 28.10.2013 to the effect that the above referred
circulars are not applicable to HMT Machine Tools Limited.
Further, the 3rd respondent by circular No.1-09(2)/2013-PE-X
dated 31.10.2013 informed as follows:
" I am directed to refer to your letter No.MDM/7.4 dated 31-10-
2013 on the subject mentioned above and to say that as directed by
Hon'ble Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad,
necessary clarification in the matter of enhancement in the age of
retirement from 58 to 60 years in respect of the employees of HMT Ltd. is
given below:
The implementation of increase in retirement age from 58
years to 60 years in HMT Ltd. (vide this Department's letter No.5
(4)/2011- PEX (vol.III) dated 14th May 2013) w.e.f. 18th April 2013 under
the provisions of revival plan approved by CCEA is applicable to the
employees of HMT Ltd. only and not to the employees of any other
subsidiary company of HMT Ltd."
It is stated that unless and until the government
permits enhancement resulting in modification of Standing
Orders and the Rules and they are adopted in Board of the 1st
respondent, the prayer for enhancement of the age cannot be
granted. It is not correct that the Rules applicable to the
employees of HMT Limited are equally applicable to the
employees of the HMT Machine Tools Limited. In HMT Limited,
the CDA and Standing Orders were modified, whereas in the
respondent Company, the CDA and Standing Orders were not
modified from 58 to 60 years. It is stated therefore, that
petitioner has not made out any case either on facts or in law.
It is further stated that this Court in Writ Petition
No. 4841 of 2015 held that 'in view of the divergent stands
adopted by the counsel on either side, I consider that the matter
deserves consideration. Any ex parte order to continue in
service the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years, particularly,
when the age of superannuation of the employees of the 1st
respondent has not been altered from 58 to 60 years, would
create any amount of hardship and even create a bad precedent.
Therefore, instead of passing an ex parte interim order, I could
see the balance of convenience would lie in making the very act
of retiring the petitioner from service on attaining the age of 58
years would abide by the result in the Writ Petition'.
HMT Machine Tools Limited is a subsidiary
Company having its own Board and independent company
governed by different and distinct service regulations, standing
orders. In fact, this company was referred to BIFR and at
present, all the operations are under the said package till recent
past. Added to this, to get over the accumulated losses, this
company had to resort to VRS scheme, whereunder more than
2000 employees were retired by borrowing substantial amount
from Government of India and said loans have become overdue.
Under these circumstances, when this company is not a profit-
making company, the question of enhancing the age of
superannuation is neither feasible nor appropriate.
7. Heard Sri Gade Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy
Solicitor General on behalf of the 3rd respondent Government of
India and Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the
1st respondent - HMT Machine Tools Limited. Learned Senior
Counsel Sri P.B. Vijay Kumar has placed reliance on the
following judgments
i) High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in W.P. No. 9514 of 2016 (S-R)
and batch, dated 18.01.2021;
ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ITI Ltd. V. K. Muniswamy 3 ;
iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P.
Electricity Board 4;
iv) DR Prakasan M P. v. State of Kerala 5
(2023) 4 SCC 373
(2004) 9 SCC 755
AIR 2023 SC 4059
8. After hearing the learned counsel on either side
extensively and upon perusing the voluminous material placed
on record, the case of petitioner is that service conditions of
employees of HMT Limited are one and the same in all the units
of HMT Limited, hence, they shall be made applicable to the 1st
respondent Company also. Whereas the case of the 1st
respondent is that pursuant to the policy of the 3rd respondent
and direction of Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public
Enterprises to reduce the age of superannuation from 60 to 58
years in respect of employees as well as Board Level Executives
for the PSUs, who are making marginal profits and /or loss-
making, the Board of Directors of the respondent Company
decided to reduce the age to 58 years. It is further stated that all
units located in several states have rolled back the age of
superannuation from 60 to 58 years. The main contention of
this respondent is that the office orders dated 30.04.2013 and
06.06.2013 are applicable only to the employees of HMT
Limited, Holding Company and its units but not to subsidiary
companies or to their units; HMT Machine Tools Limited is a
unit of HMT Machine Tools Limited, Bangalore, which is a
Subsidiary Company of HMT Limited. It is not correct that the
Rules applicable to the employees of HMT Limited are equally
applicable to the employees of the HMT Machine Tools Limited.
In HMT Limited, the CDA and Standing Orders were modified,
whereas in the respondent Company, the CDA and Standing
Orders were not modified from 58 to 60. It is further stated that
HMT Machine Tools Limited is a subsidiary Company having its
own Board and independent company governed by different and
distinct service regulations, Standing Orders. In fact, this
company was referred to BIFR and at present, all the operations
are under the said package till recent past. Added to this, to get
over the accumulated losses, this company had to resort to VRS
scheme, where under more than 2000 employees have been
retired by borrowing substantial amount from the Government
of India and said loans have become overdue. Under these
circumstances when this company is not a profit-making
company, the question of enhancing the age of superannuation
is neither feasible nor appropriate.
9. In this factual position, for better understanding of
the case, it is expedient to reproduce some of the proceedings
that are relevant for adjudication of the issue, as under.
Office Order No. 4 / 13 dated 30.04.2013:
Department of Heavy Industries vide letter No.
5(4)2011.PE.X(Vol.III) dated 30.04.2013 have conveyed the approval of
the Government for enhancement of retirement age of employees of HMT
Limited from 58 to 60 years as part of Revival Plan Proposal of HMT
Limited approved by CCEA during meeting held on 18th April 2013. The
presidential directive in this regard will be issued separately.
Office Order No. 7/13, dated 06.06.2013
HMT LIMITED
Read Offices HMT Bhavan
No.59.Bellary Road, Bangalore 560 032.
OFFICE ORDER NO.07/13 DATED 06.06.2013
Sub: Amendment to the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules of the Company
Pursuant to the approval of the Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public
Enterprises, Department of Heavy Industry, vide F. No.5(4)/2011-PE.X(Vol.III) dated 14th May
2013 and approval of the Board of Directors of the Company at its Meeting held on 29.05.2013,
the age of superannuation in respect of the employee's of HMT Limited is enhanced from 58
years to 60 years with effect from 18th April 2013, by way of amendment to Rule 24.2(a) of the
Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules of the Company as follows:
EXISTING AMENDED
24.2 On attaining the age of superannuation 24.2 On attaining the age of superannuation
(a) The age of superannuation shall be 58 years and a) The age of superannuation shall be 60 years and
an employee shall retire from service on the last day an employee shall retire from service on the last day
of the month in which he attained the age of of the month in which he attained the age of
superannuation. superannuation.
It is once again emphasized that in case the date of birth of an employee falls on the 1st
of a month, he/she shall retire from service on the last day of the preceding month.
This Order shall suitably modify/alter any letters already Issued by the concerned
"Competent Authority to the employees with regard to their date(s) of superannuation. The
concerned Units of HMT Limited shall initiate Immediate action to amend the Standing Orders
in order to give effect to above amendment of the age of superannuation, as per laid down
procedure in this regard.
All are requested to take note of the above.
(SG. Sridhar)
Chairman & Managing Director
DOP/OFN
CVO
GM&CS/GM(A)/GM(CS)/GM(HR&AM)/GPR/JGM(L)/JGM (CP) JGM(BP)/CLO(SC/ST Cell)/ PS to
CMD/AGM(LA)/AGM(CF)
GM(TRP)/GM(F)/JGM(HR)
GM(FPA)/DM(A)/DM(HRM)
In the above Office Order, the Chairman &
Managing Director of HMT Limited directed that the concerned
units of HMT Limited shall initiate immediate action to amend
the Standing Orders in order to give effect to above amendment
of the age of superannuation, as per laid down procedure in this
regard.
Note dated 28.10.2013
MDM/7 4 28th October, 2013
NOTE
Our Company HMT Machine Tools Ltd is a wholly owned Subsidiary of HMT Ltd., a PSU under
Govt. of India.
The administration of HMT Machine Tools Ltd., and all policies including those related to service
conditions of employees are decided by the Board of HMT Machine Tools Ltd. The Board of HMT
Machine Tools Ltd., consists of Managing Director, appointed by the GOI Director (Technology)
appointed by GOI, Nominee of Dept. of Heavy Industries, GOI and Special Director nominated by
BIFR The Chairman of the Holding Company by virtue of his position is the Chairman of the
HMT Machine Tools Ltd. Board.
As such the employee related service benefit of 58 to 60 years and implementation of 1997 pay
revision are being taken up at the level of different Subsidiaries. HMT (International) Ltd.
Subsidiary of HMT Ltd., got these service benefits during August, 2011 and the Holding
Company, HMT Ltd, got these service benefits during April, 2013. The decision on Age and Pay
Revision for other Subsidiaries viz., HMT Machine Tools Ltd., HMT Watches Ltd., HMT Chinar
Watches Ltd., HMT Bearings Lid, is yet to be taken by GOI and as such the retirement age of all
these Subsidiaries continues to be 58 years as of now.
The above claim is substantiated also by the fact that the Office Order No. 4/13 dated 30th
April, 2013 signed by the CMD of the Holding Company are not marked to other Subsidiaries
since the same is not applicable to them.
(M.D. Sreekumar)
Managing Director
The General Tech. Manager,
HMT Machine Tools Ltd.,
Hyderabad
It clearly depicts that the decision on age and pay revision for
other subsidiaries viz. HMT Machine Tools Ltd., HMT Watches
Ltd., HMT Chinar Watches Ltd., HMT Bearings Ltd. is yet to be
taken by GOI and as such the retirement age of all these
subsidiaries continues to be 58 years as of now. The above claim
is substantiated also by the fact that the Office Order No.4/13,
dated 30th April 2013 signed by the CMD of the Holding
Company are not marked to other Subsidiaries since the same
is not applicable to them'.
Letter addressed by GOI to the Managing Director of 1st
reseopndent, dated 31.10.2013.
No. 1-09(2)/2013-PE-X
Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises
Government of India
Department of Heavy Industry
New Delhi, the 31st October, 2013
To
The Managing Director,
HMT Machine Tools Ltd,
HMT Bhawan,
59, Bellary Road,
Bangalore-560032.
Subject: Case filed by employees of HMT Machine Tools Ltd. for
enhancement in the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter No MDM/7.4 dated 31 10.2013 on the subject
mentioned above and to say that, as directed by Hon'ble judge of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad, necessary clarification in the matter of enhancement in the age of
retirement from 58 to 60 years in respect of the employees of HMT Ltd is given below:
The implementation of increase in retirement age from 58 years to 60
years in HMT Ltd. [vide this Department's letter No.5(4)/2011-PE X (Vol. III)
dated 14th May, 2013] w.e.f 18th April, 2013 under the provisions of revival plan
approved by CCEA is applicable to the employees of HMT Ltd only and not to the employees of
any other subsidiary company of HMT Ltd.
Yours faithfully,
(S.P Dey)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Tel: 23061045
In the above letter, the GOI clarified that implementation of
increase in retirement age from 58 to 60 years in HMT Limited
(vide this Department's letter No. 5(4)/2011-PE.X(Vol.III), dated
14th May, 2013) with effect from 18th April, 2013 under the
provisions of revival plan approved by CCEA is applicable to the
employees of HMT Ltd. only and not to the employees of any
other subsidiary company of HMT Ltd.
10. From the above letters and circulars, it is
discernible that increase in retirement age from 58 to 60 years
made applicable to HMT Limited cannot be applied to HMT
Machine Tools Limited, a subsidiary to HMT Limited which has
its own Board and separate and independent CDA Rules and
Standing Orders governing the service conditions of its
employees. In HMT Limited, CDA and Standing Orders were
modified whereas in the respondent company, the said orders
were not modified from 58 to 60 years. Further, in the note
dated 28.10.2013, it is specific that the decision on age and pay
revision for other subsidiaries of HMT Limited is yet to be taken
by GOI and as such, the retirement age of all these subsidiaries
continues to be 58 years as of now. The office order dated
06.06.2013 stated that concerned units of HMT Limited shall
initiate immediate action to amend the Standing Orders in order
to give effect to above amendment of age of superannuation, as
per the laid down procedure in this regard, and it did not speak
about the subsidiaries of HMT Limited. In view of the foregoing
discussion, on factual aspects, this Court is not inclined to
favour petitioner by granting relief sought for.
11. Coming to the legal position, Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar,
learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment in Writ
Petition No. 9514 of 2016 and batch rendered by the High Court
of Karnataka. In the said judgment, common grievance of
petitioners being not given extension up to the age of 60 years
by giving benefit to the order passed by the Government of India
enhancing the age from 58 to 60 of employees of HMT Watches
Limited. It has been held that 'petitioners have no right to
contend that they should be continued up to 60 years on the
ground that HMT Limited has enhanced the age of
superannuation of its employees and its units, units as
contended would be units of HMT and not the independent
companies in which the petitioners are working. It is true that
age of retirement is a policy which would have to be arrived at
considering manifold circumstances in which the financial
conditions of the employer will also matter. The enhancement
of age for superannuation in HMT Limited will not and cannot
enure to the benefit of the petitioners to contend that despite
the financial and economic condition of the subsidiaries being in
total jeopardy, as also in the light of the fact that there is no
order passed by the Government of India directing application of
the age of enhancement to all the independent subsidiary
companies. It is also to be noticed that there is no amendment
in the Certified Standing Orders / Rules of those subsidiary
companies enhancing the age of retirement from 58 to 60. The
petitioners herein are bound by the Certified Standing Orders
and the age of retirement to 60 years not being granted to the
petitioners is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.'
12. In the case on hand, the 1st respondent is not the
unit of HMT Limited and it is its subsidiary. A subsidiary is a
separate legal entity that is owned or controlled by a parent
company. At the cost of repetition, it is to be reminded that the
Government of India in its letter to the Managing Director of the
1st respondent, dated 31.10.2013, had clarified that
implementation of increase in retirement age from 58 to 60
years in HMT Limited is applicable to the employees of HMT Ltd.
only and not to the employees of any other subsidiary company
of HMT Ltd. In view of the same, petitioner being the worker in
HMT Machine Tools Limited, which is a subsidiary company of
HMT Limited, has no right to contend that he should be
continued up to 60 years.
13. In ITI Ltd. V. K. Muniswamy (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that:
" First part of sub-clause (7) lays down that the age of
superannuation shall be 58 years However, it gives an option to the
appellant to retire an employee after he or she attains the age of 55 years
on three months' notice without giving any reasons. It also gives an option
to employees to take voluntary retirement on completion of the age of 55
years The word "may" has been used in sub-clause (7)(iti) of Clause 17 It
is only an enabling provision that enables the appellant b to continue an
employee in service who has attained the age of 58 years, up to the age of
60 years, provided he or she is medically fit This clause does not entitle
any employee to seek continuation after completion of 58 years of age as
a matter of right. The aforesaid clause does not create any right in any of
the employees to seek their continuation after 58 years However,
discretionary power has been conferred on the appellant to continue an
employee who has c attained 58 years of age, till completion of the age of
60 years."
14. In M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P.
Electricity Board (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that
" Alterations in the age of retirement by the employer is a
matter of executive policy and for sufficient and cogent reasons,
the same is permissible."
15. In DR Prakasan M P. v. State of Kerala, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
" 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, 2012, on the ground
of legitimate expectation."
16. In view of the above judgments, taking totality of
the circumstances into account, this Court is of the opinion that
the benefits as extended to HMT Limited shall not be made
applicable to its subsidiary company i.e. the 1st respondent,
particularly in view of the fact that it was already referred to
BIFR and to get over the accumulated losses, this company had
to resort to VRS scheme, whereunder more than 2000
employees were been retired by borrowing substantial amount
from the Government of India and said loans have become
overdue. Under these circumstances, when this company is not
a profit-making company, the question of enhancing the age of
superannuation is neither feasible nor appropriate. Moreover,
alteration in the age of retirement is a matter of executive policy
and in the absence of such policy taken by the Government of
India in respect of the 1st respondent directing application of the
age of enhancement to all the independent subsidiary
companies and in the absence of amendment in the Certified
Standing Orders / Rules of those subsidiary companies
enhancing the age of retirement from 58 to 60, petitioner is
bound by the Certified Standing Orders. This Court therefore, is
of the opinion that not extending the age of retirement to 60
years to petitioner is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
17. Learned counsel for petitioner tried to convince this
Court, relying on the judgment of High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 18409 of 2018, that petitioner is
entitled for implementation of office orders. In the said
judgment, the case of petitioner is that after her retirement, a
subsidiary company of HMT Limited issued an office order
revising the scales of pay of the officers holding the posts below
the Board Level, hence, by virtue of the said order, she being an
employee of another subsidiary company would also be entitled
for extension of revision of scales of pay. The High Court of
Karnataka took into consideration the order dated 04.07.2023
of a Coordinate Bench which held that if a subsidiary company
is extending the benefits to its employees, the said benefit
cannot be denied to the employees of other units and the said
exercise should be extended to the employees of all the units. It
implies, the benefits to which the employees of the subsidiary
are entitled to, can be extended to the employees of other
subsidiary company. The facts in the said case are different
from the case on hand, hence, this Court is unable to make the
said judgment applicable to this case. The Writ Petitions are
therefore, liable to be dismissed.
18. The Writ Petitions are accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
12th September 2024
ksld
