JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR,J. - (1.) The High Court examined the constitutional validity of the Circular dated 20.12.2016 and set aside the same.
(2.) Having perused the impugned order, we are satisfied, that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction in setting aside the impugned Circular, relied inter alia on the following reasons depicted in paragraphs 16 and 20 : paragraph 16 : "16. Keeping the above principles in mind, if we test the validity of the scheme that is under challenge, the following points would emerge : (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) That the scheme impugned in this writ petition is not merely for the benefit of the medically invalidated but also for the benefits of persons found medically unfit, is made clear by several clauses in the scheme which require the employees to continue in service up to the age of 58 years even if they are found to be medically unfit, so that they just have 2 years of left over service. Yet another clause in the scheme makes it mandatory for the employees who are found medically unfit, to continue to be in service up to the age of retirement, if the dependent for whose benefit they seek to retire, is found to be medically unfit. Therefore, it is very clear that the scheme seeks to confer a benefit upon persons who are medically claimed to be unfit, but who can serve either up to 58 years of age to pave way for their ward to get appointment or up to 60 years of age in case the ward is found to be medically unfit. Such a scheme clearly offends Article 16 of the Constitution, since the two pre-requisites indicated in V. Sivamurthy, namely, (a) unemployability, due to medical invalidation and (b) becoming a burden on the family due to such unemployability, will not be satisfied in cases covered by the scheme." paragraph 20 : "20. Therefore, it is clear that the scheme floated by the 3rd respondent, which is impugned in the present public interest litigation is clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution for the following reasons : (i) That it is a scheme not intended for the benefit of the medically invalidated employees, but who can continue in service up to the normal date of retirement, if their dependant is found to be unfit or disqualified, (ii) That the scheme itself is a device to perpetuate succession, by easing out employees on the verge of retirement, just two years prior to their retirement so that they can pass on the baton to their chosen dependent."
(3.) We are satisfied, that the aforesaid reasons, by themselves, were sufficient to arrive at the conclusion, that the High Court eventually recorded, while setting aside the scheme as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.;