D.K.SETH, J. - (1.) this writ petition, the calcutta port shramik union represented by its general secretary, parbati das and calcutta port officers' federation represented by its general secretary, dipankar ghosh had challenged the decision of the calcutta port trust to roll back the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years. The facts of the case briefly are that originally the retirement age of class i, class ii and class iii employees of the calcutta port trust (cpt) was 55 years. Whereas the retirement age of class iv employees was 60 years. By a resolution dated september 30, 1963, the retirement age of the class i, class ii and class iii employees were raised from 55 years to 58 years in order to maintain parity with the decision taken by the central government in respect of its employees at the material point of time. By a resolution dated october 30, 1972, the retirement age of class iv employees was reduced from 60 years to 58 years. The fundamental rules was amended by fundamental (amendment) rules, 1998, amending rule 56 by a notification dated may 13, 1998 providing for retirement age on the attainment of 60 years by a government servant. The calcutta port trust by a resolution dated december 12, 1921 had adopted the fundamental rules of the government of india except rule 86. Subsequently, by a resolution dated march 29, 1954, cpt decided that the amendments to the fundamental and supplementary rules of central government as may be made from time to time, will be automatically applicable to cpt employees as those can be adopted through the port trust requirement and are not inconsistent of the provision of the calcutta port act. Thus, in an agenda item no. 14 in may 1988, it was pointed out that the retirement age be enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. Accordingly, by a resolution no. 62 amendments of rule 56 was adopted by cpt and it was so published by an administrative notice issued on may 29, 1998 after the same was approved by the trustees. Subsequently, in a note dated september 7, 2000 addressed to the chairman of all major port trusts, the director, ministry of surface transport had pointed out the decision relating to reduction of retirement age of port employees from 60 years to 58 years and freezing of recruitment against the resultant vacancy on certain economic reasons spelt out therein. By a further letter dated september 19, 2000, the port trust was asked to expedite the rolling back. Prior to the enhancement of retirement age in 1998, a settlement of wage revision and retirement benefits and conditions of service of port and dock workers at the major ports were entered into by cpt and its workers with effect from january 1, 1997. Clause 35 and 36 of the said settlement provided respectively for adoption of steps for increasing productivity and resource generation for augmenting financial viability together with an idea of customer satisfaction and introduction of new enterprise culture in major ports on the one hand and also to retain and protect the existing benefits but that too having regard to the improvement of productivity. A note was prepared by the cpt with regard to such situation where economic reason was highlighted to support rolling back of the retirement age. In the mean time, in a letter dated april 17, 2000, ministry of surface transport again reminded the cpt for rolling back of retirement age. Through a letter dated august 4, 2000, the ministry of surface transport again requested cpt to inform the reason for delay in adopting the rolling back of retirement age. Thereafter, in a resolution no. 128 dated august 25, 2000 subject to sanction of the government, the board had adopted rolling back of retirement age from 60 years to 58 years with effect from december 31, 2000 of all employees except in respect of class iv employees recruited prior to october 30, 1972. This resolution received sanction from the ministry of surface transport through a letter dated october 18, 2000. It is this resolution no. 128 dated august 25, 2000 and the approval of the ministry of surface transport tnereto conveyed through letter dated october 18, 2000 are the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Submission on behalf of the petitioners
(2.) mr. Anindya mitra, learned counsel for the petitioners, had assailed the said rolling back on various grounds. According to him, the amendment of fundamental rules being automatically applicable to cpt by reason of the resolution adopted in 1921 and readopted in 1954, there cannot be any rolling back of retirement age until the fundamental rule (rule 56 thereof) is amended. So long the fundamental rule 56 is not amended, the same would continue to be applicable to cpt automatically. He had also questioned the competence of this board to adopt such a resolution for rolling back. He further assailed the resolution on the ground that it was not a board's resolution taken by its own decision. The board is an autonomous body. It has been influenced by the direction from the ministry of surface transport. Such decision was taken without any application of mind. Relying on the various facts, he points out that the decision suffers from mala fide and oblique motive on the part of the cpt. He further contended that the reasons as spelt out from the materials on record clearly gives out that it is not oriented by sound administrative or economic reasons. He has also pointed out the comparative economic scenario in order to contend that adoption of rolling back would be more harmful for cpt than beneficial for its viability. He contended that the adoption of the resolution is mechanical and the approval given by the government is also equally mechanical. Therefore, this resolution and the approval should be struck down. Submission on behalf of the respondents
(3.) mr. Sundrananda pal, learned counsel for the respondent cpt, points out that enhancement of retirement age was made by amendment of fundamental rule 56, by the central government. But, it did not automatically apply to cpt employees as is apparent from the materials disclosed by the petitioners themselves. On the other hand, this was adopted by the cpt in its own board resolution through proper deliberations subject to the approval of the government, which had been insisting upon enhancement of the age. Subsequently, having regard to the scheme for economic revival and introduction of sense of competition, the ministry of surface transport had thought it fit that steps relevant for economic revival and adaptability should be adopted. The possibility was explored at various levels and that after proper deliberations, it was found, as is apparent from the materials produced by the petitioners themselves, that the decision to roll back the retirement age was oriented by the economic revival and rationality. Accordingly, a resolution was so adopted independent of the advise of the ministry of surface transport. Such reasons are spelt out in the agenda note annexed to the writ petition. Accordingly, the resolution was duly taken. This resolution has since been approved by the central government. The court cannot interfere with policy decisions as in this case. According to him, such a decision was taken as a policy decision for revival of the cpt in order to compete with other worldly bodies. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed. Whether amendment of fundamental rule 56 necessary;