9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Reduction of the age of superannuation from 58 to 55 years. 2. Validity of classification between employees who retired before and after the reduction. 3. Retrospective application of legislation. 4. Compensation and reinduction of affected employees. Issue 1: Reduction of the age of superannuation from 58 to 55 years. The Government of Andhra Pradesh decided in February 1983 to reduce the age of superannuation from 58 to 55 years and issued directives to local authorities and public corporations to do likewise. This decision reversed the earlier policy from 1979, which had increased the retirement age to 58 years due to various considerations such as increased longevity and improved health facilities. The government amended Rule 56 (8) of the Fundamental Rules and Rule 231 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules to enforce this change and issued notifications to this effect. This led to a statewide agitation by affected employees and an agreement on August 3, 1983, to restore the age of superannuation to 58 years after the Supreme Court judgment. Issue 2: Validity of classification between employees who retired before and after the reduction. The petitions challenged the vires of the provisions reducing the age of superannuation. The Supreme Court initially upheld the provisions and dismissed all writ petitions. However, subsequent events, including agitations and agreements, led to amendments restoring the age of superannuation to 58 years. The Court found the classification of employees who retired before and after the reduction arbitrary and discriminatory, lacking a rational basis. The principle from D.S. Nakara v. Union of India was applied, stating that the classification must be reasonable and related to the object of the legislation. Issue 3: Retrospective application of legislation. The Court addressed whether the legislation should retrospectively apply to employees who retired between February 28, 1983, and August 23, 1984. It was argued that the exclusion of these employees from the benefits of the restored age of superannuation was arbitrary. The Court found that the delay in pronouncing the judgment led to this confusion and that excluding these employees was unreasonable. The Court emphasized that legislation to remedy wrongs should not exclude affected persons unless it is impossible or detrimental to public interest. Issue 4: Compensation and reinduction of affected employees. The Court directed that all employees retired on the ground of attaining the age of 55 years by February 28, 1983, or between February 28, 1983, and August 23, 1984, should be reinstated if they would not complete 58 years by October 31, 1985. Those not eligible for reinstatement were entitled to compensation equal to the total emoluments they would have received until they attained the age of 58 years, less any amount received ex-gratia or by way of pension. The Court also provided for the reinduction of employees who had obtained stay orders and continued in service, ensuring they would not be adversely affected by the earlier reduction in the age of superannuation. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions, struck down the word "not" from the relevant provisions of the Ordinance and Act, and provided comprehensive directions for reinstatement and compensation of affected employees, ensuring justice and fairness in the implementation of the age of superannuation policy.
|
