SURESHCHANDRA SINGH AND ORS. versus FERTILIZER CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 937 · Decided: 16-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
SURESHCHANDRA SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
FERTILIZER CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 16, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Increase in retirement age-Government of India and 
concerned ministries issued 0. Ms. increasing retirement age from 58 
years to 60 years-Directives to come to effect on amendment in relevant 
rules and regulations by concerned Public Sector Enterprises-Respond- C 
en! Corporation decided not to implement OM owing to financial 
constraints and excessive work force-Appellants on attaining 58 years, 
filed writ petition in High Court, for implementations of 0. Ms.-High 
Court dismissed the writ petition-On appeal, Held Directives were to 
become effective from date of notification of amendment to the relevant 
rules and regulations-Relevant factors for not implementing the directives D 
fully set out in the resolution of Board of Directors which was neither 
arbitrary nor unreasonable. 
Constitution of India-Articles 32 and 226-Maintainability of writ 
against administrative directions-Court cannot issue writ enforcing such E 
administrative instructions having no force of law-Appellants have no 
right to continue in service till age of 60 years-Decision of Board of 
Directors neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. 
The Government of India on recommendations of the Fifth 
Central Pay Commission issued O.M. dated 13.5.1998 enhanced the F 
retirement age of Central Government employees from 58 years to 60 
years. These directives were to come into effect from the date of 
notification of the amendment to the relevant rules and regulations. On 
19.5.1998, Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Industry, 
Government of India issued another O.M. making it clear that such G 
changes would come into force from the date the concerned Public 
Sector Enterprises amended their relevant rules and regulations. The 
Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation considered the 
matter and passed a resolution deciding not to increase the retirement 
age due to ongoing losses, surplus work force, its declaration as sick H 
937 
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A and reference to BFIR. Therefore, respondent-Corporation was granted 
·exemption by the Government of India. The appellants were serving 
in the respondent-Corporation. On their attaining the age of 58 years 
they filed a writ petition in the High Court so that they should not be 
relieved from work before attaining age of 60 years. The writ petition 
B was dismissed. Hence these appeals. 
Appellants contended that O.M. dated 13.5.1998 by itself in-
creased the retirement age and the policy therein mandatorily bound 
the respondent-Corporation; that in violation of principles of equality 
Board level employees were allowed to continue in service till the age 
C of 60 years; and that employees of different Corporations ought to be 
treated alike. 
Respondents contended that Board level employees could not be 
equated or compared with other employees as the two whole time 
D directors are directly appointed by the President of India for a fixed 
term; and that other members of the Board are government servants 
and are nominees or representatives from various ministries and are 
appointed by the President of India for a term of 3 years. 
E 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. O.M.s dated 25.1.1991 and 8.4.1991 of.the Ministry of 
Program Implementation and Department of Public Enterprises made 
it clear that all instructions/guidelines issued by the Government of 
India w'ould be of two kinds namely, Directives issued in the name of 
F PresidJnt of India and Guidelines. Directives were to be issued by the 
Adminiistrative Ministry in the name of the President while all other 
instructions were to be issued by the Department of Public Enterprise 
or by the Administrative Ministry which were advisory in nature and. 
the Board of Directors of the concerned Public Sector Undertakings ' 
could in their discretion adopt or not for reasons to be recorded Jn 
G writing\ (942-A-C) 
2. Government of India took a policy decision to increase the 
retirement ·of Central Government employees. Application of that 
decision in respect of employees of Public Sector Enterprises is dependent 
H upon so many factors that are to be taken into account in the light of 
'\ 
.. 
SURESHCHANDRA SINGH v. FERTILIZER CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. 
939 
the peculiar characteristics of each company or corporation Oi" A 
department. The O
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.