IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18736/2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
N J PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O LATE M.N. JAYARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, No.1, “BLESSINGS” STANDAGE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005. PETITIONER ( BY SHRI VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA, BY ITS SECRETARY, (DEPT. OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS) SANCHAR BHAVAN, ASHOK ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2. SECTION OFFICER (FACTORY), (DEPT. OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS) MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATION, SANCHAR BHAVAN, ASHOK ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001.
3. INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD., BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM M.D., ITI LTD., No.45/1, MAGRATH ROAD, BENGALURU.
4. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER-HR, M/s.ITI LTD., REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICER, ITI BHAVAN, DOORVANINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 016.
RESPONDENTS.
(BY SHRI N. KUMAR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2 SHRI C.K. NANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.3 AND 4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 31.07.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No.4 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘D’ TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Though this writ petition is listed for orders, as prayed for by learned advocate for the petitioner and with the consent of the learned advocates for respondents, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Shri Vinod Prasad, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that after considering the representations given by the petitioner and several other employees, by office memorandum dated 31st July, 2018, retirement age of employees working with the I.T.I. Limited was increased from 58 to 60 years.
3. While petitioner’s representation for increase of retirement age was pending consideration, he retired on 30th April, 2018. Shri Vinod Prasad’s contention is that since increase in retirement age has been effected at the instance of the petitioner and similarly situated employees through the office memorandum dated 31st July, 2018, benefit of the same should be extended to the petitioner. The next ground urged by him is that the employees, who retired on 31st July, 2018 at 2:30 p.m. were given the benefit of the increase in the age of retirement. On these two grounds, petitioner prays that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to extend the benefit of office memorandum dated 31st July, 2018 to the petitioner.
4. Shri N. Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri C.K. Nanda Kumar, learned advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4, argued opposing the petition.
5. Admittedly, office memorandum has been issued on 31st July, 2018. Petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th April, 2018.
6. It is settled that enhancement of age of retirement is a policy matter.
7. So far as giving benefit to the officials, who according to Shri Vinod Prasad, were scheduled to retire at 2:30 p.m. on 31st July, 2018 is concerned, Shri Nanda Kumar submitted that retirement takes place upon the employee attaining the age of superannuation and person is deemed to be in service till the end of office hour. Admittedly, employees who were given the benefit of extension were on duty on 31st July, 2018. Therefore, the second contention is also not tenable.
Resultantly, the Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE sma