2010 (7) TMI 1195 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the provision that prescribes retiring the persons from public employment in the State of Nagaland on completion of 35 years service from the date of joining or until attaining the age of 60 years whichever is earlier is arbitrary irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution - In Present case On July 8 2009 a Bill titled The Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Bill 2009 ( Amendment Bill ) was introduced. By the said Bill the length of service of the State Government employees was proposed to be restricted to 35 years from the date of joining of service or till he/she attains the age of 60 years whichever is earlier. The State Legislature of Nagaland on July 10 2009 unanimously passed the Amendment Bill. Thus by Second Amendment Act 2009 Section 3 of 1991 Act as amended by 1st Amendment Act 2007 was substituted. On July 20 2009 the State Government issued Office Memorandum (OM) requesting all departments to submit the list of employees who had completed 35 years of service by October 31 2009. The appellant-Association prayed that 2nd Amendment Act 2009 be quashed to the extent it has introduced 35 years service as one of the conditions for retirement of government employees and direction be issued to the State to superannuate its employees only on attaining the prescribed age of 60. The Association also prayed for quashing OM dated July 20 2009. HELD THAT - Suffice it to say that alternative mode of retirement provided in the impugned provision is applicable to all State Government employees. There is no discrimination. The impugned provision prescribes two rules of retirement one by reference to age and the other by reference to maximum length of service. The classification is founded on valid reason. Pertinently no uniformity in length of service can be maintained if the retirement from public employment is on account of age since age of the government employees at the time of entry into service would not be same. Conversely no uniformity in age could be possible if retirement rule prescribes maximum length of service. The age at the time of entry into service would always make such difference. In our view challenge to the impugned provision based on the aforesaid ground must fail. In the light of the foregoing considerations we hold that a provision such as that at issue which prescribes retiring the persons from public employment in the State of Nagaland on completion of 35 years service from the date of joining or until attaining the age of 60 years whichever is earlier does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or irrationality and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment Act, 1991.
2. Validity of the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Act, 2009.
3. Whether retirement from public employment should be based solely on age or can include length of service.
4. Allegations of arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
5. Presumption of constitutionality of legislative enactments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 3 of the 1991 Act
The Confederation of All Nagaland State Service Employees Association challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the 1991 Act, which provided for retirement on completion of 33 years of service or at the age of 57, whichever is earlier. The Gauhati High Court upheld the reduction of the retirement age from 58 to 57 but struck down the provision for retirement on completion of 33 years of service.

2. Validity of the 2nd Amendment Act, 2009
The Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Second Amendment) Act, 2009 introduced a provision that employees would retire on completion of 35 years of service or at the age of 60, whichever is earlier. This was challenged as arbitrary, irrational, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the provision is not arbitrary or irrational and does not violate constitutional principles.

3. Retirement Based on Age or Length of Service
The Supreme Court considered whether retirement should be based solely on age or could also include length of service. It referred to the case of Yeshwant Singh Kothari v. State Bank of Indore, where retirement on completion of 30 years of service or at the age of 58, whichever is earlier, was upheld. The Court concluded that there is no absolute rule that retirement must be based solely on age and that length of service can also be a valid criterion.

4. Allegations of Arbitrariness and Violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21
The appellants argued that the provision for retirement after 35 years of service was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 because it would result in different retirement ages for employees holding the same post. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the provision applies uniformly to all employees and that the classification based on length of service is valid and reasonable.

5. Presumption of Constitutionality
The Court reiterated the principle that there is always a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of an enactment. The burden of proving a law's invalidity lies on the party challenging it. The Court found that the State had justified the provision based on the need to create employment opportunities for educated youth and to combat unemployment.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the provision prescribing retirement on completion of 35 years of service or at the age of 60, whichever is earlier, does not suffer from arbitrariness or irrationality and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →