Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 13398 of 2015
Judges Name: Hon’ble Judges Abhay S. Oka J and Rajesh Bindal J
Order dated: 02.03.2023

Facts of the case: 

1. The Appellant company is a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) Of the Government of India. On 11th June 1998, a circular was issued stating the amendment was made to Rule 35 clause 2(d) of ITI Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975. The said clause provided that an employee on completing the age of 58years, will continue in service till the age of 60years with subject to medical fitness at the end of each year.
2. On 22nd August 2001, the Department of Public Enterprise proposed an Office Memorandum (O.M.) to approve the rollback of the retirement age from 60 to 58years for all PSUs to the concerned Ministry. The said proposal was approved by the concerned Ministry on 20th November 2001. 
3. A writ petition was filed by the respondents before High court of Karnataka for challenging the rollback. The writ petition was partly allowed by learned Single Judge by setting aside the circular dated 27 th March 2002. The learned Single Judge directed the appellant to take note of various factors as indicated in the amendments to said rules particular Rule 35, while considering the issue of rollback the retirement age from 60 to 58years. However it was clarified that those who attained the age of 58years, will not get the any relief. Both the parties filed writ appeals for challenging the judgement of learned Single Judge. 
4. By the impugned judgement, a Division Bench of High Court held that learned Single Judge was not right in setting aside the decision of rollback the age of retirement. However, it was held that the rollback cannot have the effect of affecting the existing rights of employees and the company recognised in terms of clause 17(7)(iii) of the Standing Orders. The decision of the appellant cannot be faulted on the issue of rollback the age of retirement from 60 to 58years. 
5. Therefore, the consideration for the issue is the interpretation of clause 17(7)(iii) of the Standing Orders. The word ‘may’ is only an enabling provision that enables the appellant to continue an employee in service who has attained the age of 58years, up to the age of 60years, provided he or she is medically fit. This clause doesn’t entitle any employee to seek continuation after completion of 58years of age as a matter of right.

Supreme Court observed/held as follows:

• The clause 17(7)(iii) of the Standing Order enables the appellant company to continue any employee in service till the age of 60years subject to medically fit at the end of each year. 
• The aforesaid clause does not confer any right on the employees to seek extension till the completion of 60years. 
• The appeal is partly allowed. Pending applications stands disposed of.