LexK. NAGARAJ & ORS. ETC. ETC., versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I~ ) K. NAGARAJ & ORS. E\C. ETC., V, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. ETC. January 18, 1985 [Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J, R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MuKHARJI, JJ.] 579 Civil Service-A~e of superannuation-Age reduced to 55 years for all Government employees, other than those in last grade service, in accordance with the election marzifesto, to provide grea•er employ111ent opportu- nilies to th'! youths-Whether the order and iVotifications are unreasonable, arbitrary and violative articles 14, 16, 21 and 300-A. of the Constitutio11-G O"Ms•. 35 (GAD1 dated 8.2 83 and Notification read with the Artdhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regu!atian of Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 1983 omitting Pro· ~1 1so to Rule 2, 56 of the AP Fundamental Rules and Rufe 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Service Rule-"Retirement be,ze[tts" n1eas11ring (If-Limits of judicial Re~1iew of Paf;cy decisions of the State-Mala fidex, b11rden of proof-Trans~'1» /erred A1alice is u11know.1 in the field of legis.1atio11. A new political party called Tdugu Desam swept to power .in the 1983 Andhra Pradesh Assembly elections, within a month of assuming office, the new Government of Andhra Pradesh, passed an order No. G.O.M.S. 36 GAD Services dated 8.2.83 (appending two Notifications) stating that in order to provide greater employment opportunities to the youths it had decided to reduce the age of superannuation of all Government employees, other than those in the last grade service, from 58 to 55 ye:irs with effect from February 28, 1983. Over 18,000 employees and 10,000 publi,: sector e:11ployees were superannuated, as a result of the order. The aggreived employees, therefore filed writ petitions and challenged the constitutiC'nal validity of the said order and Notifications under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution. According to the petitioners: (i) there was no basis at all for reducing the age of retirement from 58 to 55, as nothing had happened since October 29, 1979 on which date the age lin1it was raised from 55 to 58 years ; (ii) providing employment opportunities to the youths has no relevance on the question of fixing the age of retirement; (iii) the government had exercised its power arbitrarily without having regard to factors which are relevant on the fixation of the age of retirement; (iv) the government had acted unreasonably in not giving any previous notice to the employees which would have enabled them to arrange their affairs on_ the eve of retirem~nt; (v) the governm,nt was estopped from reducing the age of retirement to 55 since the employees had acted on the representations made to them in 1979 by increasing the age of retire1nent from 55 to 58; (vi) as a result of the increase in the age of retirement from 55 to 58 years in 1979, a vested rtght had accrued to the A B c D E F G II A B c D E F G H 580 SUPREME COURT R~PORTS (1985] 2 S.C.R. employees, which could be taken away if at a11,on1y from fnture entrants to the government service ; (vii) retirement of experienced and mature persons from government service will result in grave detriment to public services of the State · (viii) the decision of the government is bad for a total non-application of th; mind to the relevant facts and circun1stances bearing on the question of age of retirement like increased longevity ; and (ix) the government had not even considered the enormous delay which would be caused in the payment of pensionary benefits to employees who were retired from service without [any pre thought. The respondent State filed two affidavits traverssing each and every ground of challenge and asserted that the age of retirement was reduced because "it is the duty of the State, within the limits of its economic capacity and deve- lopment to make effective provisions to solve the unemployment problem which has gone upto 17,84,699 by December 31, 1982. The contentions of the State were: (i) the question of the age of superannuation was not referred to the One-roan Pay Commission and therefore, its_ recommendations to increase the age from 55 to 58 was only casual not based -on relevant criteria and has no relevance to the present decision of the State to reduce the age of retirement; (ii) as a result of the unwarranted increase in the age of superannuation from 55 to 58 not only was there a one-third increase in the number of unemployed youths but also the chances of promotion of the service
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.