JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J.
1. The challenge herein is to the roll-back of the age of retirement. The age of retirement of all the employees of Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the I.T.I.) from the very inception was 58 years. The Vth Pay Commission appointed by the Government of India recommended that the age of superannuation of the Central Government employees should be raised from 58 years to 60 years. Accepting the recommendation, the Government of India vide G.S.R. No. 248 (E), dated May 13, 1998, amended Fundamental Rules 56, by which the age of superannuation of the Central Government employees was raised to 60 years. As a sequel to the aforesaid decision, the Public Sector Undertakings under the control and supervision of Ministry of Heavy Industries and Department of Public Enterprises also raised the age of superannuation of their employees from 58 years to 60 years. The employees of the I.T.I., other than the workmen, are governed by the CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 35 (2) (a) of the Rules, as it stood prior to 28.5.1998, provided that the age of superannuation shall be 58 years. The rule was amended by the Corporate Personnel Policy Circular No. 444 dated 28.5.1998, and it provided that the age of superannuation for the employees of the company shall be 60 years and the amended rule will come into force w.e.f. 30.5.1998. Subsequently, Rule 35 (2) (a) was again amended by Corporate Personnel Policy Circular No. 473 on 27.3.2002 and the age of superannuation was rolled back and was restored to 58 years. The petitioners seek quashing of the policy circular No. 473 dated 27.3.2002 and also the office orders issued by the Government of India on 22.8.2001 and 20.11.2001.
2. Sri R.K. Saxena and Dr. R.G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid Policy Circular No. 473 basically on three grounds. The first ground is that the amendment in Rule 35 has been made contrary to the policy laid down by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Government of India. The second ground is that the amendment was effected without consulting the officers association and recognised unions functioning in the company, which was mandatory under the policy of the Government. The third ground is that the amendment is discriminatory inasmuch as it has been made applicable only to below Board Level Employees while the age of superannuation of the Board Level employees still continues to be 60 years.
3. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to refer to the relevant orders and circulars issued by the Government of India and the company in this regard.
4. The Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Public Enterprises, issued an office memorandum on 9.5.2000, which is as under :
"OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject.--Age of retirement of employees of Public Sector Enterprises.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. No. 18 (6)/98-GM dated 19.5.1998 and No. 18/9/98-GM dated 21.8.1998 on the subject mentioned above and to say that there has been proposals for rolling back the age of retirement in the case of some sick/unviable P.S.Us, for which rehabilitation/ revival packages are under consideration. The procedure to be followed in such cases was considered and it has now been decided that in such cases the Board of the concerned company should review its decision on the raising of the age of retirement and make suitable recommendations to the administrative Ministry/Department concerned for taking the approval of the Cabinet.
All the Administrative Ministries/Departments are requested to follow the above procedure in case the age of retirement of employees of sick/ unviable P.S.U. for which rehabilitation/revival packages are under consideration, is to be rolled back to 58 years. The P.S.Us, under their administrative control may also be apprised of this procedure."
5. The Ministry issued another office memorandum on 1.1.2001, on the same subject and it reads as under :
"OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject.--Age of retirement of employees of Public Sector Enterprises.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. of even number dated the 9th May, 2000, on the subject mentioned above wherein the procedure for rolling back the age of retirement of employees of sick/unviable P.S.Us, for which rehabilitation/revival packages are under consideration, has been laid down. The procedure included taking the approval of the Cabinet.
2. The issue whether the approval of the Cabinet is necessary is such cases has been reconsidered and it has now been decided that such proposals for roll back of the age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years in Public Sector Enterprises covered under the D.P.E. O.M. dated 9.5.2000, which are duly approved by their Board of Directors and also the Minister in charge of the administrative Ministry need not be brought before the Cabinet.
3. All the administrative Ministries/Departments are requested to kindly note the above mentioned change in the procedure."
This was followed by office memorandum dated 22.8.2001 and the relevant part thereof is being reproduced below :
"OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject.--Age of retirement of employees of Public Sector Enterprises.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. of even number dated 1.1.2001, on the subject mentioned above wherein the decision of the Government that proposals for roll back of age of retirement of employees of sick/unviable P.S.Es. for which rehabilitation/ revival packages are under consideration, which are duly approved by the Board of Directors and also the Minister-in-charge of the administrative Ministry need not be brought before the Cabinet was communicated.
2. The Government has further considered the question of extending the above decision to alt P.S.Es. and all categories of employees both Board level and below Board level and it has been decided that henceforth, the Minister-in-charge of the administrative Ministry will have the authority to approve proposals for roll back of age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years for all P.S.Es. and all categories of employees, both Board level and below Board level, which are duly approved by their Board of Directors."
6. On 8.6.2001, the Additional Director (Personnel and Administration) of the I.T.I. wrote a letter to the Dy. Director General (P.I.P.), Department of Telecommunication, that the company had engaged M/s. Price Water Coopers, and internationally recognised consultant, to advise the company on restructuring and other measures to tone up the performance of the company. The consultants had given their recommendations on the strategic direction which the company had to undertake. The company had a large number of surplus manpower and by way of reduction of cost on manpower, the consultants had suggested for reducing the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years. The Board of Directors of the company, after deliberating the merits and demerits of the report of the consultants in their meeting held on 21.5.2001, had agreed to their recommendations for reducing the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years. The Government was accordingly requested to process the proposal and grant approval.
7. Thereafter the department of telecommunication sent a letter to the C.M.D. of I.T.I., Ltd. on 20.11.2001, intimating that the proposal of M/s. I.T.I., Ltd. to revise the age of retirement of below Board level employees of the company from 60 years to 58 years, as approved by its Board of Directors, had been considered by the Government and in terms of Office Memorandum dated 22.8.2001, from Department of Public Enterprises, the Government had approved the proposal of the company to roll back the age of retirement of below Board level employees of M/s. I.T.I., Ltd. A copy of this letter has been filed as C.A. 4 to the counter-affidavit. This was followed by another letter dated 14.1.2002 by the Under Secretary of Department of Telecommunication to the Additional Director (P & A) of I.T.I., Ltd., Bangalore, wherein it was mentioned that the case had been reconsidered and it had been decided that the rolling back of the age of retirement of below Board level employees in I.T.I. from 60 years to 58 years should be Implemented from 1.4.2002. It was thereafter that the Rule 35 was amended by the Corporate Personnel Policy Circular No. 473 dated 27.3.2002 and the age of superannuation of the employees of the company was brought back to 58 years.
8. Dr. R.G. Padia, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the office memorandum dated 9.5.2000, sent by the Ministry of Heavy Industries, Government of India, which laid down the procedure for rolling back the age of retirement of Public Sector Undertakings was specifically confined to the sick/unviable Public Sector Enterprises. It further provided that the Board of the Company could review the decision on the age of retirement after taking approval of the Cabinet. Learned counsel has submitted that the I.T.I., Ltd. was not a sick/unviable Public Sector Undertaking and, therefore, the earlier decision dated 28.5.1998 to raise the age of retirement to 60 years could not be reviewed and, consequently, the impugned decision of the Board of Directors to reduce the age of retirement to 58 years was contrary to the policy of the Government of India in this regard. Shri J.N. Tewari, learned senior counsel for the respondents, has refuted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that the subsequent orders issued by the concerned Ministry had effected substantial change in the office memorandum dated 9.5.2000 and the conditions under which the age of retirement could be rolled back had been altered.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners ignores the subsequent office memorandum issued by the Ministry. By paragraph 2 of the office memorandum dated 1.1.2001 of the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, it was clearly provided that the proposal for roll back of age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years covered by the office memorandum dated 9.5.2000, which is duly approved by the Board of Directors of the company and also the Minister-in-charge of the Administrative Ministry, need not be brought before the Cabinet. Therefore, by this office memorandum, the taking of approval of the Cabinet as provided by the office memorandum dated 9.5.2000, was done away with. Similarly, by the office memorandum dated 22.8.2001, the earlier office memorandum dated 9.5.2000, which provided for the roll back of age of retirement of employees of only sick/unviable enterprises for which rehabilitation/revival packages were under consideration, was also done away with. Paragraph 2 thereof clearly provided that the decision shall cover all Public Sector Undertakings and also all categories of employees and the Minister-in-charge of the Administrative Ministry will have the authority to approve the proposal to roll back the age of superannuation. Thus, in view of the office memorandum dated 22.8.2001, the age of superannuation of all categories of employees working in the Public Sector Undertakings could be reduced to 58 years irrespective of the fact whether it was sick/unviable or a profit making undertaking. The decision of the Board of Directors of the company to roll back the age of superannuation of below Board level employees and consequent amendment in Rule 35 of the Rules, therefore, cannot be challenged on the ground that the same is contrary to the policy decision of the Government of India.
10. The assertion of the petitioners that I.T.I., Ltd. Naini, is not a sick/unviable unit but is making good profit, has also been seriously challenged on behalf of the respondents. Annexure-C.A. 6 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 (sworn on 13.5.2002) is a chart showing the financial result of the I.T.I. Ltd., Naini, for the past 8 years. In the year 1993-94 the unit made profit of Rs. 23.14 crores, but, thereafter, it incurred huge losses every year. The yearwise loss from the financial year 1994-95 to 2000-01 was Rs. 28.10 crores, Rs. 73.80 crores, Rs. 49.82 crores, Rs. 66.96 crores, Rs. 68.76 crores, Rs. 38.77 crores and Rs. 12.60 crores, respectively. This clearly shows that the unit has not been making any profit and, on the contrary, it is an unviable unit.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that company has hired a consultant Price Water and Coopers who gave a report that there was surplus manpower and in order to reduce the same, the age of retirement of the employees of the company should be reduced. Accepting the said report, the company resolved to roll back the age of retirement. However, the report of the Parliamentary Committee showed that there was no surplus manpower and, therefore, the whole basis of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the company was based on wrong premise and was liable to be struck down. We are unable to accept the submission made. The report of Parliamentary Committee also makes reference to surplus manpower but suggests their utilisation in company's new ventures. That apart, a company is always entitled to take all such legally permissible measures which will improve its working and profitability. It is not for the Courts to judge why a particular policy was adopted unless the same violates the laws in force.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the Additional Director (Personnel and Administration) of I.T.I. Ltd., Bangalore, had sent a letter to the Dy. Director General (P.I.P.), Department of Telecommunication on 8.6.2001, wherein a request was made to Government to process the case for reducing the retirement age of below Board level employees of the company from 60 years to 58 years, and it was mentioned therein that after receiving the approval of the Government, the same will be implemented in consultation with the officers' association and the recognised unions functioning in the company. A copy of this letter has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. According to the learned counsel, the officers' association and also the union of the employees had not been consulted by the Board of Directors of the company and a unilateral decision was taken to reduce the age of retirement and, this was contrary to the proposal of the company which was sent to the Government of India. It may be stated at the very outset that the office memorandum. Issued by the Government of India on 1.1.2001, 22.8.2001, 20.11.2001 and 14.1.2002 (copies filed as C.A. 1, C.A. 2, C.A. 4 and C.A. 5 to the counter-affidavit) nowhere provided that the decision to roll back the age of retirement shall be implemented in consultation with the officers' association and also the recognised unions functioning in the company. The decision taken by the Board of Directors of I.T.I. Ltd. in their meeting held on 21.5.2001 (copy of which has been filed as Annexure-C.A. 3 to the counter-affidavit) also did not provide for having any kind of consultation with the officers' association and the recognised unions functioning in the company. It appears that the Additional Director (Personnel and Administration) of his own mentioned the said fact in his letter sent to the Dy Director General (P.I.P.), Department, of Telecommunication, on 8.6.2001. Probably what he intended was that the date on which the amended rule had to come in force shall be decided in consultation with the officers' association and union of workers. However, the Government of India in its communication dated 14.1.2002 (Annexure-C.A. 5 to the counter-affidavit) directed that the rolling back of the age of retirement should be implemented with effect from 1.4.2002, leaving no scope for any consultation with the officers' association regarding the date of enforcement of the amended rule.
13. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it becomes necessary to examine the larger question whether an employee has any legal right to contend that his age of retirement cannot be altered unilaterally and the same should be done only after consulting him. In D.C. Saxena v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1987 (3) SCC 251 (Para 9), it was held that the expression "terms of service" clearly includes tenure of service. K. Nagaraj and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 551, is a case where challenge was made to a decision of Government by which the age of superannuation of all Government employees was reduced from 58 to 55 years. The following observations made by the Court in paragraphs 7 and 14 of the reports would be helpful in appreciation of the controversy :
"We will presently set out the specific contentions advanced before us but, before doing so, it would be necessary to indicate the approach which, in our opinion, should be adopted while examining a question of the present nature, namely, the fixation of the age of retirement. Barring a few services in a few parts of the world as, for example, the American Supreme Court, the terms and conditions of every public service provide for an age of retirement. Indeed, the proposition that there ought to be an age of retirement in public services is widely accepted as reasonable and rational. The fact that the stipulation as to the age of retirement is a common feature of all of our public services establishes its necessity, no less than its reasonableness. Public interest demands that there ought to be an age of retirement in public services. The point of the peak level of efficiency is bound to differ from individual to individual but the age of retirement cannot obviously differ from individual to Individual for that reason. A common scheme of general application governing superannuation has therefore, to be evolved in the light of experience regarding performance levels of employees, the need to provide, employment opportunities to the younger sections of society and the need to open up promotional opportunities to employees at the lower levels early in their career. Inevitably, the public administrator has to counterbalance conflicting claims while determining the age of superannuation. On the one hand, public services cannot be deprived of the benefit of the mature experience of senior employees ; on the other hand, a sense of frustration and stagnation cannot be allowed to generate in the minds of the junior members of the services and the younger sections of the society. The balancing of these conflicting claims of the different segments of society involves minute questions of policy which must, as far as possible, be left to the judgment of the executive and the Legislature...................................
............But, while resolving the validity of policy issues like the age of retirement, it is not proper to put the conflicting claims in a sensitive judicial scale and decide the issue by finding out which way the balance tilts. That is an exercise which the administrator and the Legislature have to undertake. ..................... (Para 7) ............. There is no one fixed or focal point of reasonableness. There can be large and wide area within which the administrator or the legislator can act, without violating the constitutional mandate of reasonableness. That is the area which permits free play in the joints.........." (Para 14).
14. In Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1889 (Para 6), it was held that the statute or statutory rights governing the conditions of service of an employee may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. It was further held that the emoluments of the Government servant and his term of service are governed by the statute or statutory rules which may be unilaterally altered by the Government without the consent of the employees.
15. Bishun Narain Misra v. State of U. P. and Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1567, is a case where the validity of reduction in the age of retirement was considered by a Constitution Bench. The U, P. Government by a notification dated 27.11.1957, raised the age of retirement of Government servants to 58 years but it was restored back to 55 years on 25.5.1961. The challenge to the same was repelled by a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Autar Pandey v. State of U. P. and Ors., AIR 1962 All 328. In appeal the Apex Court held that there is no provision which takes away the power of Government to increase or reduce the age of superannuation. It was further held that the alteration in the circumstances of the case could not be regarded as unreasonable. In State Bank of India v. S. Vijai Kumar, (1990) 4 SCC 481, the Court referred with approval the view taken in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India (supra) that the emoluments of the Government servants and his terms of service are governed by statute or statutory rules which may be unilaterally altered by the Government without the consent of the employee, and that he had no vested contractual right in regard to the terms of his service and that the same can be altered unilaterally. It was further held that the prohibition, if any, to alter the terms and conditions can be found under the Constitution of India and in case power of the rule or law making authority is not circumscribed or limited by any constitutional mandate then it has power to amend such terms and conditions of service unilaterally without the consent of the employee. In State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya, 1998 (2) AWC 2.86 (SC) (NOC) : (1998) 4 SCC 117, the question which came up for consideration before the Court was the entitlement towards medical expenses of the Punjab Government employees and pensioners. A new policy was introduced whereunder full medical expenses incurred in any hospital In India not being a Government hospital in Punjab was not to be reimbursed. It was held that normally it is not within the domain of the Court to weigh pros and cons of the policy or to scrutinise it and to test the degree if it is beneficial or equitable for the purpose of varying, modifying of annulling it, based on howsoever sound or good reasoning, except where it is arbitrary or violative of any constitutional, statutory or any other provision of law. It was further held that the Court would dissuade itself from entering Into this realm which belongs to the executive.
16. The catena of decisions, referred to above, clearly lay down that the date of superannuation, which is implicit in tenure of service, comes within the ambit of "terms of service", and it can be unilaterally altered by the employers without the consent of the employee and an employee has no legal right to challenge the same except on very limited grounds, viz., that the same contravenes any provision of the Constitution or a statute or a rule having binding force. The petitioners have neither challenged nor there is anything on record to show that the policy of the company to roll back the age of retirement to 58 years infringes any constitutional provision or statutory rule. What they contend is that before taking the decision to restore the age of superannuation, they were not consulted. In view of the legal position explained above, the contention raised has absolutely no substance and must fail.
17. Dr. R.G. Padia and Sri R.K. Saxena have next submitted that the Policy Circular No. 473 dated 27.3.2002 has lowered the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years of only below Board level employees by amending Rule 35 of the rules. Learned counsel has submitted that the age of retirement of Board level employees continues to be 60 years and the same has not been lowered and thus the below Board level employees have been subjected to discriminatory treatment and the impugned circular and the amendment to Rule 35 violates the guarantee of equal treatment enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Sri Y.K. Sinha and Sri J.N. Tewari, who have appeared for respondent No. 2, have submitted that the Board level employees of the company constitute an altogether separate and distinct class and they cannot be equated with other employees of the company. They have further submitted that except for the Board level employees, the age of retirement of all other categories of employees who are covered by the Conduct. Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 and also those who are workmen within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, has been lowered to 58 years, and, thus, the policy circular dated 27.3.2002 cannot be said to be discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
18. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the members of petitioner No. 1, namely, I.T.I. Ltd., Naini, Officers Association, Naini, are governed by the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975. It is averred in paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter-affidavit (sworn on 18.7.2002) that there is no Board level employee working in I.T.I. Naini. It is further averred that the workman of the unit are governed by standing orders which have been certified under the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. 1946, and the rules made thereunder. An application for amendment in the certified standing orders was filed before the certifying officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which was allowed by the order dated 5.6.2002 and the age of superannuation of workmen has also been reduced to 58 years. The order was sent to the units on 6.6.2002. The union of workmen have preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which is still pending. It is further averred in paragraph 6 of the supplementary counter-affidavit that the decision taken by the Board of Directors of I.T.I. to roll back the age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years has been made applicable to all the units of the company. These facts show that except for the Board level employees of the company, the age of retirement has been reduced to 58 years uniformly for all the units all over the country and for all categories of employees whether officers grade or workmen. In paragraph 9 of the main counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Board level employees are those who are appointed by the President of India directly and their terms of employment is contractual. It is also stated therein that there is no Board level employee in the Naini unit of I.T.I. and all the employees working therein have been appointed by the Board of Directors or under the authority of the Board of Directors.
19. Chapter II of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, deals with Directors and constitution of Board of Directors. Section 252(3) of this Act provides that the directors of a company collectively are referred to as the "Board of Directors". Section 291 of the Companies Act, 1956, gives the general power of the Board of a Company, and it lays down that subject to the provisions of the Act, the Board of Directors of a Company shall be entitled to exercise all such powers and to do all such acts and things as the company is authorised to exercise and do. Section 292 of the aforesaid Act enumerates the powers which the Board of Directors of a Company shall exercise on behalf of the company with the rider that they will do so only by means of a resolution passed at meetings of the Board. The Companies Act makes elaborate provision regarding appointment and retirement of directors and their powers and the manner of exercise of power. It is not in dispute that the Board level personnel of I.T.I., Ltd. are appointed by the President of India and they have a fixed contractual term. The nature of duties to be performed by them are entirely different. Therefore, they cannot be equated in any manner with the employees who are working in different units of the company and are governed by the rules or who are workmen. They are, therefore, an altogether different class wholly distinct from the employees and workmen of the company. It may also be mentioned here that often nominees of the financial institutions and senior officers of the concerned Ministries are also on the Board of the Government companies. It is, therefore, neither feasible nor desirable for the company to lay down their age of superannuation.
20. It has been well-settled by a catena of the Apex Court decision that though Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation and when any rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied, namely, the classification on which it is founded must be based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group ; and the second test is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved and in other words there must be some rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved. Broadly speaking, the concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of guarantee under the Constitution and those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to equal treatment. If there is rational classification consistent with the purpose for which such classification was made, equality is not violated. (See State of Mysore v. P. Narsingh Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349 and Union of India and Ors. v. I.M. Havildar/Clerk SC Bagari, (1999) 3 SCC 709). In Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2OO2 SC 1533, it was held as under :
"The concept of equality before law does not involve the idea of absolute equality amongst all which may be a physical impossibility. All that Article 14 guarantees is the similarity of treatment and not identical treatment. The protection of equal laws does not mean that all laws must be uniform. Equality before the law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. Equality before the law does not mean that things which are different shall be treated as though they were the same. It is true that Article 14 enjoins that the people similarly situated should be treated similarly but what amount of dissimilarity would make the people disentitled to be treated equally is rather a vexed question .....................Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not 'per se' amount to discrimination within the inhabitation of the equal protection clause, The State has always the power to make classification on a basis of rational distinctions relevant to the particular subject to be dealt with."
21. As shown earlier, the Board level employees of the company is an altogether distinct and separate class exercising different power and performing different work, which is wholly different from the work being performed by those employees who are governed by the rules or the workmen of the units. Their nature of appointment being contractual is altogether different. Therefore, the impugned circular dated 27.3.2002, issued by the company which excepts the Board level employees from its operation regarding rolling back of age of superannuation, cannot be said to be discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
22. If a person has joined service under an expectation that in view of the service rule, he would superannuate at a particular age and the said age of superannuation is lowered, it may be unjust as a person in service normally plans his affairs keeping in mind the age on which he will retire. The sudden lowering of the age of retirement may upset his planning and may cause him serious injury. But this is not the case here. The petitioners joined service knowing fully well that the age of retirement is 58 years. It is only on 28.5.1998, that the age of superannuation was raised to 60 years. It is common knowledge that soon thereafter, there was a thinking that the age of superannuation in the Public Sector Undertakings should not have been raised and this was widely reported in the media. The office memo dated 9.5.2000, of the Government of India Annexure-5 to the writ petition shows that the proposal for rolling back the age of retirement had been considered and approved and the procedure was also laid down for implementing the said decision. The petitioners, therefore, became aware in May, 2000 that the benefit of enhancement in the age of superannuation would not last long and it could revert back to its original position. It is stated in paragraph 25 of the writ petition that many Public Sector Undertakings such as Air India, National Textile Corporation. U.T.I. Ltd., Hindustan Steel Construction Ltd. and others have rolled back the age of retirement of their employees from 60 to 58 years. The petitioners, therefore, cannot contend that the impugned circular Is either unjust or unreasonable in any manner.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not made any submission to assail the orders issued by the Government of India on 22.8.2001 and 20.11.2001.
24. No other point was urged.
25. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. No costs.