PR ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATIONS: ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATION-356

It is well settled that the age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of the State Government. It is not for the courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from the one applicable to Government employees under the relevant service Rules and Regulations nor can the Court insist that once the State had taken a decision to issue a similar Government Order that would extend the age of retirement of the staff teaching in the Homeopathic Colleges as was issued in respect of different categories of teaching staff belonging to the Dental stream¹⁰⁰ and the Ayurvedic stream, the said Government Order ought to have been made retrospective, as was done when Government Order¹²⁰ dated 14th January, 2010 was issued by the State and given retrospective effect from 1st May, 2009.

These are all matters of policy that engage the State Government. It may even elect to give the benefit of extension of age to a particular class of Government employees while denying the said benefit to others for valid considerations that may include financial implications, administrative considerations, exigencies of service, etc.

In a somewhat comparable case on facts that²⁰⁰ arose in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Another vs. B.D. Singhal and Others, the appellant had resolved to recommend enhancement of the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 to 60 years. The said proposal, when²⁴⁰ sent to the State Government for prior approval, was turned down. This led to the aggrieved employees filing a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which was allowed and New Okhla Industrial Development Authority was directed to consider the matter afresh and forward its proposal to the State Government for its approval.

It was left open³⁰⁰ to the State Government to consider giving effect to the increase in the age of retirement from the date when New Okhla Industrial Development Authority had resolved to bear the financial burden for the increase of age or from such date as it may consider expedient. This time, the State Government acceded to the proposal received from New Okhla Industrial³⁶⁰ Development Authority for enhancing the age of retirement to 60 years, but made the said decision prospective.

Aggrieved by the refusal of the State Government to make the decision retrospective, the respondents amended the pending writ petition which was allowed⁴⁰⁰ by the High Court that struck down the provision of making the decision prospective and directed that such of the respondents who had retired from service by then, would be deemed to have worked till the extended age of retirement, with all consequential benefits. Challenging the said decision, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which was allowed by this Court. In the instant⁴⁸⁰ case, at the time of issuing Government Order dated 14th January, 2010, the reasons that had weighed with⁵⁰⁰ the State for enhancing the age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years have been spelt out. The recitals refer to the dearth of eligible hands in the middle level cadre for promotion, the fact that many Post Graduate Medical Courses were likely to be adversely affected due to the said reason and also the fact that retention of senior professors in service at Government Medical Colleges would help the State Government to increase the number of Post Graduate seats, in terms of the revised norms circulated by the Medical Council of India.

Similarly, while considering extension of⁶⁰⁰ the age of retirement of Doctors in the Dental faculties under the Medical Education Service, taking note of a letter addressed by the Director of Medical Education who stated that some highly qualified members of the Senior Dental faculty were due to retire and their retirement would adversely affect the research students working under them, as also hinder the conduct of some of the on-going Post Graduate Courses in Government Dental Colleges, the State permitted enhancement of their age from 55 years to 60 years.

When it came to the third Government Order dated 7th April, 2012,⁷⁰⁰ the recitals therein refer to the report of the Director of Ayurveda Medical College who pointed out dearth of qualified⁷²⁰ teaching staff in higher categories and the adverse remarks made by the Central Council of India Medicine, which had proceeded to reduce the number of BAMS seats from the sanctioned strength of 70 to 50 in the Government Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram, and had refused to grant permission for Postgraduate courses in different specialities.

Keeping this scenario in mind, the State decided to enhance the retirement age of the teaching faculty in Ayurveda Colleges from 56 years to 60 years. Lastly,⁸⁰⁰ came the Government Order dated 9th April, 2012 wherein, taking note of the representation received from the Principal of the Government Homeopathic College, Thiruvannathapuram, similar benefit was extended to the teaching staff in Homeopathic Colleges.

The singular difference⁸⁴⁰ was that unlike the Government Order dated 14th January, 2010, the subsequent three Government Orders issued by the State were made prospective, thus denying any relief to the teaching faculties in the Dental, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic streams who had superannuated in the meantime. In this background, the appellants filed the additional affidavit questioning the decision of the State⁹⁰⁰ of not incorporating a clause in the three Government Orders issued later on, making their operation retrospective, which would have otherwise ensured their benefit.

Had the matter stood as it was on the date when the impugned judgement came to be passed, perhaps the appellants could have advanced an argument that the action of the State must be expected to⁹⁶⁰ be fair and reasonable and in line with the guarantees extended under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that there was no rationale in treating them differently when Doctors and Professors from all streams teaching in Medical Colleges¹⁰⁰⁰ in the State formed a homogenous class and are governed by the same set of Service Rules and Regulations. But after the State Government issued three successive Government Orders extending the age of retirement of the members of the Dental Faculties, Ayurvedic Faculties and Homeopathic Faculties from 55 years to 60 years, the insistence on the part of the appellants that these Government Orders ought to be given retrospective effect, even though there was no clause to that effect¹⁰⁸⁰ inserted therein, cannot be countenanced.

Such a decision lies exclusively within the domain of the Executive. It is for the¹¹⁰⁰ 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.¹¹⁵⁶