Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2010 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 1195 - SUPREME COURTWhether the provision that prescribes retiring the persons from public employment in the State of Nagaland on completion of 35 years service from the date of joining or until attaining the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier, is arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - In Present case, On July 8, 2009 a Bill titled `The Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Bill, 2009' (`Amendment Bill') was introduced. By the said Bill the length of service of the State Government employees was proposed to be restricted to 35 years from the date of joining of service or till he/she attains the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. The State Legislature of Nagaland, on July 10, 2009 unanimously passed the Amendment Bill. Thus by Second Amendment Act, 2009, Section 3 of 1991 Act as amended by 1st Amendment Act, 2007, was substituted. On July 20, 2009, the State Government issued Office Memorandum (OM) requesting all departments to submit the list of employees, who had completed 35 years of service by October 31, 2009. The appellant-Association prayed that 2nd Amendment Act, 2009 be quashed to the extent it has introduced 35 years' service as one of the conditions for retirement of government employees and direction be issued to the State to superannuate its employees only on attaining the prescribed age of 60. The Association also prayed for quashing OM dated July 20, 2009. HELD THAT:- Suffice it to say that alternative mode of retirement provided in the impugned provision is applicable to all State Government employees. There is no discrimination. The impugned provision prescribes two rules of retirement, one by reference to age and the other by reference to maximum length of service. The classification is founded on valid reason. Pertinently, no uniformity in length of service can be maintained if the retirement from public employment is on account of age since age of the government employees at the time of entry into service would not be same. Conversely, no uniformity in age could be possible if retirement rule prescribes maximum length of service. The age at the time of entry into service would always make such difference. In our view, challenge to the impugned provision based on the aforesaid ground must fail. In the light of the foregoing considerations, we hold that a provision such as that at issue which prescribes retiring the persons from public employment in the State of Nagaland on completion of 35 years' service from the date of joining or until attaining the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier, does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or irrationality and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
|