D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) Jessop & Company Limited Staff Association (Petitioner) has moved this writ petition challenging the notice dated 28th of April, 2091 (Annexure "P-4") rolling back the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years in line with the Government of India (GOI) Office Memorandum (OM) dated 1st January, 2001. Submission of the Petitioner:
(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is within the competence of the State to roll back the age of superannuation. But it is open to scrutinise by the Court as to the justification of such roling back on certain limited grounds. According to him, unless there is a transparency in the taking of the decision or it is shown that there is arbitrariness or non-application of mind or is contrary to all justifiable reasons the Court can interfere. He also contends that there was no decision of the Board to roll back the retirement age. The Board has to take a decision. Instead of taking such decision, it has simply implemented the decision of the Government. He has also raised certain question of discrimination. Inasmuch as, in respect of those cases where persons opted to Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) dated 3rd February, 2001 were given the benefit on the basis of the retirement age as on 60. This option was open till 28th, of February, 2001. But, thereafter the age of was rolled back on 28th of April, 2001 thus there will be a discrimination in between the acceptance of VRS on the one hand and the existing employees on the other. Submission on behalf of the Union of India :
(3.) Mrs. Archana, Sengupta, learned Counsel representing Union of India, on the other hand, relied on the decision in B.J. Shetty and others v. Air India limited and others, 2000 (l) CLR 230 (Bom) to contend that in identical case, the Bombay High Court had rejected the challenge to rolling back. She adopts the reasoning given in the said decision in order to counter the submission of Mr. Jayanta Mitra, appearing for the petitioner. According to her, the question being a policy decision, this Court cannot interfere with the same unless arbitrariness is shown. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials produced the petitioner has not been able to show that there was any arbitrariness. Submission on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 :;