Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Petitioners 1 and 2 are driver and Khalasi respectively working in the 3rd respondent Organisation. On 01.07.2010, the General Council of the 3rd respondent through Ext.P1 decided to enhance the age of retirement of its administrative staff, who included the petitioners as well. The enhancement of the age of superannuation is said to be from 58 to 68. Though the said proposal has been forwarded to the Government by the 3rd respondent Organisation, so far it has not taken any decision on the issue of enhancement of the age of superannuation. As could be seen from the records and based on the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as on 01.07.2010, when Ext.P1 resolution was passed by the 3rd respondent, the age of superannuation of the administrative staff was 56 years. The resolution was passed to enhance the age of retirement on a par with other similarly placed institutions, which are also under the control of the State Government.
3. In any event, in terms of Rule 29(6) of the Service Rules of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent enhanced the age of superannuation of the administrative staff of the 3rd respondent Organisation from 56 to 58.
4. The petitioners contended that among the institutions that have been taken as the basis for enhancing the age of superannuation of the staff of the 3rd respondent Organisation, the age of superannuation is not uniform. In other words, in some institutions, it is 58 and in most of other institutions, it is 60. In that context, seeking further enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 to 60, the petitioners are said to have made a representation in Ext.P4 to the 2nd respondent. Complaining of non consideration of the said representation by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
5. The learned Government Pleader, on his part, has submitted that the age of superannuation is essentially a matter of policy and since the Government has been actively seized of the issue, at this juncture it does not call for any adjudication on merits.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation objectively in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since it is reported by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are likely to retire before the Government could take a decision on Ext.P4, it is made clear that the impending retirement of the petitioners shall be subject to the outcome of the decision being taken by the respondent authorities in response to Ext.P4 representation. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv