SHIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question raised in the instant petition filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is whether the appellant could avoid the reduction in the age of retirement to 58 years which has been effected by the amendment made in 1988 to the Haryana State Supply and Marketing Cooperative Service (Common Cadre) Rules, 1969 (for brevity 'the 1969 Rules'). It is appropriate to mention that after amendment under the 1988 Rules, the age of retirement has now been provided to be 58 years whereas under the 1969 Rules, the age of retirement was 58 years with further provision for However, extension of 2 years that could be granted by the Administrative Committee after taking into account the service record and the medical fitness.

(2.) The learned Single Judge held that the respondents were well within their rights to effect the change in age of retirement and no right of the appellant has been infringed. The extension of two years provided by 1969 Rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In any case, we are of the view that the State is not precluded from reducing the age of retirement and making the amendment applicable to the present incumbents who are holding the post. The aforesaid view has been taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of K. Nagaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1985 AIR(SC) 551 and the same view has been followed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nagaland Senior Government Employees Welfare Association and others v. State of Nagaland and others, 2010 7 SCC 643. The fixation of age of retirement essentially is a matter of executive policy which is largely dependent on need of administration. In K. Nagraja's case , the age of public servant was decreased to 55 years and the constitutional validity of the rule was challenged. Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that the legislature did not act arbitrarily or irrationally. The appellants cannot make a complaint that by reducing the age of retirement to 58 years, any vested rights have been taken away because amendment made in the Rule in 1988 Rules would certainly apply to the case of the appellants who have retired on 30.04.2011. The Rule framed in the year 1988, obviously would apply and govern the age of their retirement. In view of the judgment rendered in K. Nagrajan's case , the appeal does not merit admission.

(3.) Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.