2013 (7) TMI 1222 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Different ages of superannuation for similarly situated employees.
2. Constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Retirement on attaining age of Superannuation) Regulations, 2005.
3. Entitlement to back wages and consequential benefits.

Summary:

Issue 1: Different ages of superannuation for similarly situated employees
The Supreme Court examined whether two different ages of superannuation (58 and 60 years) can be prescribed for employees similarly situated, including members of the same service, based solely on their source of entry into the service. It was held that differential treatment based on the source of recruitment is not permissible without an intelligible differentia. The Court found that the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Retirement on attaining age of Superannuation) Regulations, 2005, which prescribed different retirement ages for employees, were discriminatory and unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 2: Constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Retirement on attaining age of Superannuation) Regulations, 2005
The High Court had declared the Regulations, 2005 unconstitutional as they created two classes of employees with different retirement ages. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that as long as Regulation 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Services of Engineers (Public Health Branch) Regulations, 1978, which aligns the retirement age with that of State Government employees, remains unamended, the age of superannuation for Jal Nigam employees should be 60 years. The Court emphasized that any amendment to the service conditions must be prospective and cannot be done through administrative decisions alone.

Issue 3: Entitlement to back wages and consequential benefits
The Court addressed the entitlement of employees to back wages and other benefits. It was held that employees who moved before a court of law, whether they received interim orders or not, are entitled to full salary up to the age of 60 years. Those who did not approach the court and retired at 58 years will not receive arrears of salary but will be deemed to have continued in service up to 60 years for the purpose of retirement benefits. The arrears of retirement benefits must be calculated and paid accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision declaring the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam Employees (Retirement on attaining age of Superannuation) Regulations, 2005 unconstitutional, ensuring a uniform retirement age of 60 years for all employees. The Court also provided detailed directions on the payment of arrears and recalculation of retirement benefits for affected employees.