2021 (7) TMI 1443 - SC - Indian Laws

Enhancement of age of superannuation of its employees from fifty-eight to sixty years - whether the High Court has transcended the limits of its power of judicial review? - HELD THAT - Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a public function channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service Regulations the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to challenge the action of NOIDA. Though NOIDA sought the approval of the State government for the enhancement with immediate effect it never intended or portrayed to have intended to give retrospective effect to the prospectively applicable Government order. The representation of NOIDA could not have given rise to a legitimate expectation since it was a mere recommendation which was subject to the approval of the State Government. Hence the doctrine of legitimate expectation also finds no application to the facts of the present case. In STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS DAYANAND CHAKRAWARTY AND ORS 2013 (7) TMI 1222 - SUPREME COURT the court directed payment of arrears deeming the employees to have worked till sixty years in spite of no interim order being issued in that regard because (i) the Office Memorandum was held ultra vires; (ii) Harwinder Kumar Jaswant Singh and Radhey Shyam Gautam had already held that the age of retirement of the Jal Nigam employees shall be 60 years unless a Regulation prescribing a lower retirement age is issued in terms of Regulation 31 and had extended this benefit to all the parties who had filed writ petitions. Therefore the above observation must be read in the context of the distinct factual situation in the case. The argument of the employees that since they had moved the Chief Minister with a representation in August 2012 before their date of superannuation which was to fall at the end of the month and that they should have the benefit of the enhancement in the age of superannuation has no substance. On 31 August 2012 the Respondents moved the High Court but no interim relief was granted to them and they attained the age of superannuation. They have not worked in service thereafter. Since the High Court s judgment dismissing the challenge to the government order dated 30 September 2012 has attained finality the submission cannot be accepted. The impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench at Lucknow of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is set aside - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's directive for retrospective application of the Government Order enhancing the age of superannuation.
2. Whether the High Court exceeded its judicial review powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. The applicability of the principle of 'no work no pay' to the employees who had retired before the issuance of the Government Order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the High Court's Directive for Retrospective Application:

The Supreme Court examined the High Court's decision to strike down paragraph 1(ii) of the Government Order dated 30 September 2012, which enhanced the age of retirement prospectively. The High Court had directed that the enhancement should date back to 29 June 2002, based on the original resolution of the Board of NOIDA. The Supreme Court found this directive factually incorrect and legally untenable. The original recommendation for enhancement made in 2002 was rejected by the State Government in 2009, and this rejection was upheld by the High Court in 2012. The High Court's direction for retrospective application ignored the finality of the 2009 rejection and the 2012 judgment.

2. Judicial Review Powers Under Article 226:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by entering the realm of policy-making, which is the prerogative of the executive. The decision to enhance the age of superannuation and the effective date of such enhancement are matters of policy. The High Court's intervention in these matters was deemed inappropriate. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have interfered with the State Government's decision to implement the enhancement prospectively, as it fell within the domain of executive policy-making.

3. Principle of 'No Work No Pay':

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the principle of 'no work no pay' should not apply to the respondents who had retired before the issuance of the Government Order. The respondents had superannuated on 31 August 2012, and no interim relief was granted by the High Court to allow them to continue working. The Supreme Court noted that since the respondents did not work beyond their retirement date, they could not claim salary and benefits for the period they did not work. The Court distinguished this case from previous judgments where employees were deemed to have worked due to the unconstitutionality of the retirement age regulations.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court upheld the prospective application of the Government Order dated 30 September 2012, and ruled that the respondents were not entitled to salary and benefits for the period they did not work post-retirement. The judgment reaffirmed the limits of judicial review under Article 226, emphasizing the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive in matters of policy.