NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus B D SINGHAL & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 15-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY & ANR.
v.
B D SINGHAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2310 of 2021)
JULY 15, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law – Superannuation – Enhancement of
Superannuation age – New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
(NOIDA) constituted under provisions of the Act of 1976 – On 30
September 2012, Government of Uttar Pradesh acceded to a
proposal of the Appellant-NOIDA to enhance the age of
superannuation of its employees from fifty-eight to sixty years,
prospectively – High Court set aside the decision of the State
government to give prospective effect and in exercise of its power
of judicial review u/Art.226 of the Constitution directed that
retrospective effect be given to the Government Order from 29
September 2002 – Whether High Court transcended the limits of its
power of judicial review – Held: High Court trenched upon the
realm of policy making and assumed to itself, jurisdiction over a
matter which lies in the domain of the executive – Whether the age
of superannuation should be increased and if so, the date from
which this should be effected is a matter of policy into which the
High Court ought not to have entered – Whether the decision to
increase the age of superannuation should date back to the
resolution passed by NOIDA or should be made effective from the
date of the approval by the State government was a matter for the
State government to decide – Ultimately, in drawing every cut-off,
some employees would stand on one side of the line while the others
would be positioned otherwise – This element of hardship cannot
be a ground for the High Court to hold that the decision was
arbitrary – The proposal 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 – Respondent-
employees could not have claimed a vested right that the
enhancement in the age of retirement should be made effective from
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 978
978
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
979
the date on which NOIDA had resolved to submit a proposal for the
approval of the government – U.P. Industrial Area Development
Act, 1976 – s.19 – New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
Service Regulations, 1981 – Regn.25 – Doctrine of legitimate
expectation – Inapplicability of – Constitution of India – Art.226 –
Judicial Review.
Doctrines/Principles: Principle of promissory estoppel – When
applicable and when not applicable – Held: For the principle of
promissory estoppel to apply, one party must have made an
unequivocal promise, intending to create or affect a legal relationship
between the parties – The principle of promissory estoppel will not
apply if the communication issued was either a proposal or a
recommendation.
Doctrines/Principles: Doctrine of legitimate expectation –
Held: The doctrine of legitimate expectation is grounded in fairness
and reasonableness – There is a legitimate expectation that the
actions of the State are fair and reasonable.
Government Orders/Notifications/Circulars: Government
order – When retrospectively applicable – Held: Government order
can be given retrospective application only if expressly stated or
inferred through necessary implication.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Whether the age of superannuation should be
enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to
enhance the age of superannuation, the date with effect from which
the enhancement should be made falls within the realm of policy.
The High Court in ordering that the decision of the State
government to accept the proposal to enhance the age of
superannuation must date back to 29 June 2002 evidently lost
sight of the factual background, more specifically (i) the rejection
of the original proposal on 22 September 2009; and (ii) the
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17
January 2012 refusing to set aside the order rejecting the proposal
on 22 September 2009 which has attained finality. But there is a
more fundamental objection to the basis of the decision of the
High Court. The infirmity in the judgment lies in the fact that the
NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. B D
SINGHAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
High Court has trenched upon the realm of policy making and
has assumed to itself, jurisdiction over a matter which lies in the
domain of the executive. Whether the age of super

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.