vil Appeal No 10761077 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 1781985 of the Allahabad High Court in CM Writ No 6849 of 1984
K Parasaran B Datta PP Rao KL Hathi Anil Nauriya SR Aggarwal Y Ramachandran UJ Rana RP Srivastava Hem 188 ant Sharma P Parmeshwaran Ms Sushma Suri and CV Subba Rao for the Appellants
MK Ramamurthy CS Vaidyanathan section Ravindra Bhatt Mohan SR Setia and Probir Choudhary for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
The question involved in these appeals by special leave which are filed against the judgment dated August 17 1985 of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No 6849 of 1984 relates to the constitu tional validity of regulation 192 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulations 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Staff Regulations 1960  as amended on 211
1977 by the Life Insurance Corporation of India hereinafter referred to as the Corporation  which pro vides that an employee belonging to Class I or Class II appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September 1956 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age but the competent authority may if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the Corporation to do so direct such employee to retire on completion of 50 years of age and at any time thereafter on giving him three months  notice or salary in lieu thereof
Prior to January
1955 there were more than 200 insur ers carrying on life insurance business in India
As it came to the notice of the Government that the Indian life insur ers with a few exceptions were virtually controlled by few individuals who were utilising the funds of those companies to the detriment of the industry and the policyholders the Government decided to nationalise the life insurance busi ness
Pursuant to the said decision the President of India promulgated the Life Insurance Emergency Provisions Ordi nance 1956 on January 19 1956 providing for the vesting of the management of the life insurance business which was called the controlled business under the Ordinance which was being carried on by any insurer in India on that day in the Central Government and providing for its management
On the passing of the said Ordinance the management of the controlled business of all the insurers in India thus vested in the Central Government and pending the appointment of the custodians for the controlled business of any insurer the person in charge of the management of such business immedi ately before the passing of the Ordinance was required to be in charge of the management of the business for and on behalf of the Central Government
The Ordinance contained detailed provisions for the carrying on of the life insur ance business by 189 the Government for the time being
The Ordinance was replaced by the which was published on 21st of March 1956
The said Act was followed by the Act 31 of 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act  which was published in the Gazette on 18th June 1956
The Act howev er came into force on 1st July 1956
The Act provided for the establishment and incorporation of the Corporation
The Corporation was accordingly established on 1st September 1956
Under the Act the expression appointed day  is de fined as the date on which the Corporation is established
The appointed day for the purposes of the Act is therefore September 1 1956
By virtue of section 7 of the Act on the appointed day all the assets and liabilities appertaining to the controlled business of all insurers the management of which it had been taken over earlier by the Central Govern ment stood transferred to and vested in the Corporation
When the Corporation thus came into existence it had no employees of its own to carry on the vast business of the large number of insurers which had been taken over by it
It therefore became necessary to transfer the services of the existing employees of the insurers to the Corporation because without the services of those employees it was almost impossible for the Corporation to run the life insur ance business in India which involved management of the various offices situated in different parts of India serv icing of lakhs of insurance policies the administration of the assets taken over from the insurers and several other activities connected with the life insurance business
The nature of the work of the Corporation was such that it required the services of the employees with sufficient experience and expertise in running the life insurance business
In order to meet the above need section 11 of the Act came to be enacted
Section 11 of the Act originally stood as follows 11
Transfer of service of existing employees of insurers to the Corporation 1 Every whole time employee of an insurer whose controlled business has been transferred to and vested in the Corporation and who was employed by the insurer wholly or mainly in connection with his controlled business immediately before the appointed day shall on and from the appointed day become an employee of the Corporation and shall hold his office therein by the same tenure at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privi leges as to pen 190 sion and gratuity and other matters as he would have held the same on the appointed day if this Act had not been passed and shall continue to do so unless and until his employ ment in the Corporation is terminated or until his remuneration terms and conditions are duly altered by the Corporation Provided that nothing contained in this sub section shall apply to any such employee who has by notice in writing given to the Central Government prior to the ap pointed day intimated his intention of not becoming an employee of the Corporation
2 Notwithstanding anything con tained in sub section 1 or in any contract of service the Central Government may for the purposes of rationalising the pay scales of employees of insurers whose controlled business has been transferred to and vested in it or for the purpose of reducing the remuner ation payable to employees in cases where in the interest of the Corporation and its policyhold ers a reduction is called for alter the terms of service of the employees as to their remuneration in such manner as it thinks fit and if the alteration is not acceptable to any employee the Corporation may terminate his employment on giving him compensation equivalent to three months  remuner ation unless the contract of service with such employee provides for a shorter notice of termination
Explanation The compensation payable to an employ ee under this sub section shall be in addition to and shall not affect any pension gratuity provident fund money or any other benefit to which the employee may be entitled under his contract of service
3 If any question arises as to whether any person was a whole time employee of an insurer or as to whether any employee was employed wholly or mainly in connection with the controlled business of an insurer immediately before the appointed day the question shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final
4 Notwithstanding anything contained in the 14 of 1947 or in any other 191 law for the time being in force the transfer of the serv ices of any employee of an insurer to the Corporation shall not entitle any such employee to any compensation under that Act or other law and no such claim shall be entertained by any Court tribunal or other authority
 Sub section 1 of section 11 of the Act provided that every whole time employee of an insurer whose controlled business had been transferred to and vested in the Corpora tion and who was employed by the insurer wholly or mainly in connection with the controlled business immediately before the appointed day ie September 1 1956 would on and from the appointed day become an employee of the Corpora tion and would hold his office therein by the same tenure at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and condi tions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension and gratuity and other matters as he would have held the same on the appointed day if the Act had not been passed and would continue to do so unless and until his employment in the Corporation was terminated and until his remunera tion terms and conditions were duly altered by the Corpora tion
The proviso to that sub section provided that nothing contained in sub section 1 of section 11 of the Act would apply to any such employee who had by notice in writing given to the Central Government prior to September 1 1956 intimated his intention of not becoming an employee of the Corporation
The whole time employees of the erstwhile insurers whose services were thus transferred to the Corpo ration are hereinafter referred to as the transferred employees  of the Corporation
As mentioned earlier there were more than 200 insurers whose controlled business had been taken over by the Corporation and we are informed that there were about 27000 whole time employees working in them
The conditions of service of these transferred employ ees of the Corporation whose services were transferred to the Corporation under section 111 of the Act were not uniform
It was naturally difficult to continue after the establishment of the Corporation in the cases of all the transferred employees the conditions of service enjoyed by them when they were in the employment of the former insur ers
The conditions governing the retirement of those offi cials with which we are concerned in these appeals were also diverse and different
In some cases the age of retirement had been fixed at 55 years in some at 58 years and in some others at 60 years
In many cases the insurers had permitted their employees to continue in their service even beyond 60 years depending upon their efficiency and physical capacity
The conditions of service of employees and in particular the terms of remuneration prevalent in some of the former 192 insurance organisations were also disadvantageous to the policyholders
It therefore became necessary to bring about uniformity in the conditions of service of the transferred employees
Parliament therefore enacted sub section 2 of section 11 of the Act which provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub section 1 of section 11 or in any contract of service the Central Government might for the purposes of rationalising the pay scales of employees of insurers whose controlled business had been transferred to and vested in it or for the purposes of reducing the remu neration payable to those employees in cases where in the interest of the Corporation and its policyholders a reduc tion was called for alter the terms of service of the employees as to their remuneration in such manner as it thought fit and if the alteration was not acceptable to any employee the Corporation might terminate his employment on giving him compensation equivalent to three months  remuner ation unless the contract of service with such employee provided for a shorter notice of termination
Doubts arose as regards the meaning of sub section 2 of section of the Act
In Christopher Pimenta and Others vs Life Insurance Corporation of India the High Court of Bombay opined that under section 112 of the Act the Central Government could alter the terms and conditions of service of the employees only as to the remuneration and that the said sub section had no reference to the other terms and conditions of the service
The above decision of the Bombay High Court was delivered on 1641957
It is stated that there were cases pending in other courts also questioning the scope and ambit of sub section 2 of sec tion 11 of the Act as it stood originally
Hence in order to remove all doubts the President of India promulgated an ordinance which was replaced by Act 171957 substituting a new sub section in the place of the original sub section 2 of section II of the Act making it more comprehensive and thus enabling the Central Government to alter suitably all conditions of service of the transferred employees
The new sub section 2 of section 11 of the Act was further modi fied by Act 36 of 1957
Thereafter sub section 2 of sec tion 11 of the Act read as follows 2 Where the Central Government is satisfied that for the purpose of securing uniformity in the scales of remuner ation and the other terms and conditions of service applica ble to employees of insurers whose controlled business has been transferred to and vested in the Corporation it is necessary so to do or that in the interest of the Corpora tion and its policy holders a reduction in the remuneration payable or a revision of the other terms and 193 conditions of service applicable to employees or any class of them is called for the Central Government may notwith standing anything contained in sub section 1 or in the  or in any other law for the time being in force or in any award settlement or agree ment for the time being in force alter whether by way of reduction or otherwise the remuneration and the other terms and conditions of service to such extent and in such manner as it thinks fit and if the alteration
is not acceptable to any employee the Corporation may terminate his employ ment by giving him compensation equivalent to three months  remuneration unless the contract of service with such em ployee provides for a shorter notice of termination
Explanation The compensation payable to an employee under this sub section shall be in addition to and shall not affect any pension gratuity provident fund money or any other benefit to which the employee may be entitled under his contract of service
 Section 491 of the Act conferred powers on the Corpo ration to make with the previous approval of the Central Government regulations not inconsistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder
It provided for making regulations to provide for all matters for which provision was expedient for the purposes of giving effect to the provisions of the Act
Clause b of sub section 2 of section 49 of the Act in particular conferred power on the Corporation to make regulations as regards the method of recruitment of employ ees and agents of the Corporation and the terms and condi tions of such employees or agents
It was felt that clause b of section 492 of the Act was not in terms applicable to the transferred employees who became the employees of the Corporation under sub section 1 of section 11 of the Act but only referred to the employees and agents of the Corpo ration who were employed after the Corporation was estab lished that is after 1st September 1956
To remove the above doubt by Act 17 of 1957 section 49 of the Act was amended by introducing clause bb in sub section 2 of section 49 of the Act which expressly conferred power on the Corporation to make regulations with the previous approval of the Central Government as regards the terms and condi tions of service of persons who have become employees of the Corporation under sub section 1 of section 11 
The above clause was introduced into the Act with retrospective effect along with the new sub 194 section 2 of section 11 of the Act
It is this to be seen that the conditions of service of the transferred employees were to be regulated by the provisions of the Act by an order made by the Central Government under section 112 of the Act and the regulations made under clause bb of sec tion 492 of the Act
Even before clause bb was actually introduced into the Act with retrospective effect by Act 17 of 1957 the Corporation had promulgated the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulations 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Staff Regulations 1956 
Under regulation 21 of the Staff Regulations 1956 provision was made regarding superannuation and retirement of the employ ees of the Corporation
Regulation 21 reads as follows 21
An employee shall retire at fifty five years of age provided that the appointing authority may at its discretion extend the service every year upto 60 years of age
Provided however that in respect of some of the employees of insurers who are allowed to continue in service beyond age 60 because of the terms and conditions of employ ment having not been favourable in the past the Executive Committee may at its discretion extend their service every year upto age 65
Provided further that during the three years beginning from 1st September 1956 the Executive Committee may at its discretion extend the service of a class I employee who has completed sixty years of age for such period as may be specified but not exceeding one year at a time if such extension is considered necessary in the inter est of the Corporation
Explanation Notwithstanding anything contained in this Regulation where an employee has privilege leave earned but not availed of as on the date of retirement as prescribed in the above Regulation he may be permitted to avail of the leave and in that case the employee will be deemed to retire from service at the expiry of the leave
 The above regulation fixed the age of retirement of an employee at 55 years while empowering the authority to extend the service of an employee at its discretion every year upto 60 years of age
The first proviso to regulation 21 of the Staff Regulations 1956 however 195 authorised the Corporation to allow some of the employees of insurers who were allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 60 years for the reasons mentioned therein
The above regulation thus made a distinction between an employee who entered the service of the Corporation after it was estab lished ie after 1st September 1956 and the transferred employees insofar as the age of retirement was concerned
Pursuant to the power conferred on it under sub section 2 of section 11 of the Act the Central Government issued an order on 161957 called the Life Insurance Corporation of India Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms  Conditions of Service of Employees Order 1957 which came into force retrospectively from 1st September 1956
This order is called the standardisation order 
This Order applied to all transferred employees who had become employ ees of the Corporation under section 111 of the Act and who were in supervisory clerical and subordinate grades now classified as Class III and Class IV employees of the erstwhile insurers on 31st August 1956
Clause 13 of the above Order which related to the age of superannuation read as follows 13
Retirement The normal age of retirement shall be 60
But the Corporation may require any employee who has attained the age of 55 to retire if his efficiency is found to have been impaired
 Clause 13 of the above Order therefore modified regu lation 21 of the Staff Regulations 1956 to the extent indicated therein with effect from the commencement of the Corporation
After the promulgation of the Order the trans ferred employees to whom it applied were entitled to contin ue in the service of the Corporation till they attained the age of 60 years subject to the Corporation exercising its powers to retire a transferred employee on his attaining the age of 55 years if his efficiency was found to have been impaired
In the case of the other employees who joined service subsequent to 1st September 1956 regulation 21 of the Staff Regulations 1956 which prescribed the age of retirement at 55 years subject to the appointing authority at its discretion extend the age of retirement to 60 years as provided therein continued to apply
This Order applied to the members of the staff of the Corporation belonging to Class III and Class IV categories
As regards the trans ferred officers belonging to the Class II category 196 namely the Field Officers a standardisation order was made under sub section 2 of section 11 of the Act on 30th December 1957
Clause 6 of that order originally read as follows 6
Leave and retirement In the matter of leave and retire ment Field Officers shall be governed by the same regula tions as are applicable to Class I officers of the Corpora tion
 The above clause 6 was substituted by a new clause on 25111962 which read as follows 6
Leave and retirement In the matter of leave and retire ment Development Officers shall be governed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulations 1960 as amended from time to time
 It may be noted that the Field Officers referred to in the former clause 6 had been redesignated as the Development Officers before it was substituted by the later clause 6 of the standardisation order
Insofar as the transferred offi cers belonging to Class I were concerned the question of determination of their age of superannuation was taken up for consideration by the Services and Budget Committee of the Corporation on 20th November 1959
Para 9 of the office note circulated amongst the members of that committee gave a true picture of the conditions prevailing then
It read thus 9
As regards retirement the Government has mentioned that the Department of Expenditure has objected to raising the date of superannuation to 58 years of age on the ground that other statutory Corporations are also demanding the same benefit on the analogy of the Life Insurance Corporation s proposal
Standardisation Order provides that an employee shall retire at 60 years of age but the competent authority may require an employee to retire at any time after 55 years of age if his efficiency is found to have been impaired
In the amended Regulations approved by the Board this provi sion of the Standardisation Order was incorporated as far as employees in Classes III  IV are concerned but in the case of transferred officers and Field Officers the retirement age was fixed at 55 extensible to 58 with a further proviso that in special circumstances only the competent authority may extend the services 197 beyond age 58 and upto 60 years of age
The Board has also decided that administratively we shall grant exten sion upto 60 liberally till the end of 1963
Most of the insurers permitted their officers to continue in service upto 60 years of age and even beyond depending upon their efficiency
There is no reason why there should be distinc tion between officers and staff in this matter as both of them had similar privileges with regard to retirement in the past
There is thus a strong case for extending the provi sions of the Standardisation Order regarding retirement to the transferred officers also
As regards new recruits it was thought that there was no justification to bring down the retirement age from 60 to 55 all of a sudden nor was it considered necessary to maintain any distinction between officers and staff
All the employees have often represented that the age of retirement should be raised to 60
A compro mise was therefore struck by fixing the age at 58
In the light of the above it is suggested that the provisions of the Standardisation Order may be extended to transferred officers and the retirement age may be retained at 58 for persons recruited on or after 1st January 1959
It may be added that this would mean a modification of the earlier decision of the Board in this matter
 After the matter was duly considered by the Services and the Budget Committee and by the Corporation regulations were framed under clauses b and bb of section 492 of the Act prescribing the ages of retirement of the employees of the Corporation belonging to different categories with the previous approval of the Central Government and were incorporated in the Staff Regulations 1960 made by the Corporation which came into effect on July 1 1960
Regula tion 19 of the Staff Regulations 1960 dealt with the subject of superannuation and retirement of the employees of the Corporation
It reads thus Superannution and Retirement 191
A transferred employee shall retire on completion of age 60 but the appointing authority may direct such employ ee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter if his efficiency is found to have been im paired
2 An employee appointed to the service of the 198 Corporation on or after 1st September 1956 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age but the appointing authority may direct such employee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter if his efficiency is found to have been impaired
       It is seen from the above regulation that the cases of all transferred employees were dealt with by sub regulation 1 of regulation 19 and the cases of employees appointed to the service of the Corporation that year after 1st Septem ber 1956 were dealt with by sub regulation 2 of regula tion 19
All the transferred employees were entitled to remain in service till they completed 60 years of age but the appointing authority was empowered to retire any such transferred employee on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter if his efficiency was found to have been impaired
All employees appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September 1956 were required to retire on completion of 58 years of age but the appointing authority was empowered to retire any such employee on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter if his efficiency was found to have been impaired
This regula tion was made in supersession of all other earlier regula tions
In the case of the transferred employees the regula tion was in conformity with the standardisation order passed in respect of Class III and Class IV transferred employees in whose case the age of retirement was fixed at 60 years
The result was that the regulation made a clear and distinct classification of all the employees of the Corporation belonging to all classes into two groups transferred em ployees and the employees appointed after 1st September 1956 for purposes of the age of retirement having regard to the historical reasons
It would appear that an industrial dispute arose between the Class III and Class IV employees who entered the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September 1956 and the Corporation and one of the points of dispute related to the age of retirement
These employees demanded that their age of retirement should also be fixed at 60 years as in the case of Class III and Class IV employ ees belonging to the category of transferred employees
The dispute ultimately ended in a settlement which was incorpo rated in the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at under section 2p and section 181 of the and rule 58 of the Industrial Central Disputes Rules 1957 dated 29th January 1965
The relevant part of the settlement arrived at between the parties to the said industrial dispute as regards the age of retirement of class III and class IV emp 199 loyees who entered the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September 1956 read as follows 1
Retirement age for new employees There will be no distinction between Class 111 and Class IV transferred employees  and Class III and Class IV employees who entered the service of the Corporation on or after 191956 in regard to retirement age which shall be 60 After the above settlement was arrived at regulation 19 of the Staff Regulations 1960 which had been brought into force with effect from July 1 1960 was suitably amended to bring it in conformity with the settlement
The relevant part of the amended regulation 19 which was noti fied on 1961965 read thus 191
An employee belonging to Class III or Class IV and a transferred employee belonging to Class I or Class II shall retire on completion of age 60 but the appointing authority may direct such employee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter if his efficiency is found to have been impaired
2 An employee belonging to Class I or Class II appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September 1956 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age but the appointing authority may direct such employee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter if his efficiency is found to have been im paired
2A Notwithstanding what is stated in sub regula tions 1 and 2 above an employee may be permitted to retire at any time after he has completed age 55      On account of the settlement arrived at between Class III and Class IV employees who were appointed subsequent to 1st September 1956 and the Corporation which was followed up by the amendment of the Staff Regulations with effect from 1961965 the employees of the Corporation were divid ed both longitudinally and latitudinally insofar as the age of superannuation was concerned
The longitudinal division of the employees was as follows
All the transfer 200 red employees belonging to Class I and Class II became entitled to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years subject of course to the power of the Corpora tion to retire any of them prematurely on completion of 55 years of age if his efficiency was found to have been im paired and all the Class I and Class II officers appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September 1956 had to retire on completion of 58 years of age subject again to the power of the Corporation to retire any such employee on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter if his efficiency was found to have been im paired
The employees of the Corporation were divided lati tudinally into two groups
All the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV irrespective of the fact whether they were transferred employees or employees appointed after 1st September 1956 were entitled to continue in service till 60 years of age but the employees belonging to Class I and Class II who were appointed to the service of the Corpora tion on or after 1st September 1956 had to retire on the completion of 58 years of age subject to the usual clause relating to premature retirement
Sub regulation 2 of regulation 19 which affected the employees belonging to Class I and Class II appointed to the service of the Corpo ration on or after 1st September 1956 was substituted by a new sub regulation which was notified on September 3 1966
This new sub regulation 2 of regulation 19 read as fol lows 2
An employee belonging to the Class I or Class II ap pointed to the service of the Corporation on or  after 1st September 1956 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age but the appointing authority may at its discretion extend his service for one year at a time upto 60 years of age
The appointing authority may however direct an em ployee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter if his efficiency is found to have been impaired
 The modification made by the new sub regulation 2 of regulation 19 empowered the appointing authority to extend at its discretion the service of any employee of the Corpo ration belonging to the Class I or Class II categories appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September 1956 for one year at a time upto 60 years of age
Since the Corporation found that the discretion conferred on the appointing authority to extend the services of Class I or Class II officers beyond 58 years of age at its discre tion was not being exercised satisfactory but very often abused sub regulation 2 was again amended on 2111977 withdrawing the power to extend the service of 201 employees belonging to Class I and Class 11 appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September 1956 beyond 58 years of age
It also provided that in the inter est of the Corporation the Corporation could retire an employee after completion of 50 years of age
The relevant part of regulation 19 amended on 2111977 reades thus 191
An employee belonging to Class III or Class IV and a transferred employee belonging to Class I or Class II shall retire on completion of age 60 but the competent authority may if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the Corporation to do so direct such employee to retire on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter on giving him three months  notice or salary in lieu thereof
An employee belonging to Class I or Class II appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September 1956 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age but the competent authority may if it is of the opinion that it is in the interest of the Corporation to do so direct such employee to retire on completion of 50 years of age or at any time thereafter on giving him three months  notice or salary in lieu thereof The 1st Respondent SS Srivastava entered the service of the Corporation as a Class III employee on 2231957 on which date he was appointed as an Assistant in the Corpora tion
From the said Class III post he was promoted to the Class I post since there was no necessity to pass through a Class II post before entering a Class I post on 8101963 and was appointed as Assistant Branch Manager Admn
From the post of Assistant Administrative Officer he was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer in June 1971 and was further promoted as Assistant Divisional Manager on 1871978
Since he was born in the month of June 1926 notice was issued in February 1984 to Respondent No 1 of his retirement which was due on 30th June 1984 on his completing the age of 58 years
Before the date of his retirement he instituted a writ petition out of which these appeals arise in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No 6849 of 1984 on the file of the High Court of Allahabad questioning the validity of regulation 192 of the Staff Regulations 1960 as it stood then and praying for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Corporation not to retire him before he completed the age of 60 years
The High Court 202 issued an interim order of stay of his retirement on May 22 1984
Hence he was not retired on the 30th June 1984 as originally notified and allowed to continue in service
The Writ Petition was allowed striking down regulation 192 as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the Corporation was directed not to retire the 1st Respondent before he attained the age of 60 years
By virtue of the judgment of the High Court the 1st Respondent continued in the service of the Corporation till he complet ed 60 years of age
He was retired from service on 30th of June 1986 during the pendency of these appeals
In the Writ Petition filed by the 1st Respondent it was contended that there was no justification to prescribe two different ages of retirement one for the transferred employ ees belonging to Class I and Class II categories and the other for the employees who joined the service of the Corpo ration after 1st September 1956 and who also belonged to Class I and Class II categories
It was also contended that whatever may be the position in respect of persons who were appointed directly to any post belonging to Class I or Class II category after 1st September 1956 as regards those who joined the service of the Corporation on being appointed to a Class III post after 1st September 1956 there could not be any reduction of the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years on their being promoted to a Class I post or Class II post
In other words the contention of the 1st Respondent before the High Court was that since he had the fight to continue in service if he had remained in Class III only till he attained the age of 60 years as a Class III employee by virtue of the settlement and the amendment of the regula tion 19 in the year 1965 the age of retirement in his case could not be reduced to 58 years only because he had been promoted to a Class I post
The Writ Petition was contested by the Corporation and the Union of India
It was urged on behalf of the Corporation and the Union of India that the transferred employees and the employees who joined the service after 1st September 1956 belonged to two distinct and separate classes which had been treated differently throughout for valid reasons
It was pleaded by them that on the establishment of the Corporation under the Act it became necessary to continue the services of the employees of the erstwhile insurers whose life insurance business was taken over by the Corporation to run the business of the Corpora tion because the Corporation had no employees of its own in the month of September 1956 when it was established
Since as regards the age of retirement there was no uniformity in the establishments in which the transferred employees were working prior to the nationalisation of the life insurance business 203 and as in some cases the age of retirement had been fixed at 55 years in some other cases it was 58 years in few other cases at 60 years and in many cases there was no age of retirement and the employees could continue as long as they were found to be physically and mentally fit it became necessary to fix the age of retirement of the transferred employees on a fair equitable and just basis
The Central Government and the Corporation felt that 60 years of age could be a proper age of retirement in the circumstances in respect of the transferred employees and that was the reason why by regulation 19 and the standardisation order issued earlier in the case of certain classes of transferred em ployees under section 112 of the Act the retirement age was fixed at 60 years and this was done with a view to retaining the services of the experienced employees of the erstwhile insurers
It was pleaded on behalf of the Corpora tion and the Union of India that in the circumstances the classification of the employees into two categories namely transferred employees and others who joined the service of the Corporation on or after 1st September 1956 for the purposes of the age of superannuation was a valid classifi cation and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India had not been violated
It was further pleaded that the discrimination made between the employees belonging to Class I and Class II on the one hand and the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV on the other in the matter of the age of superannuation was not invalid since they belonged to two distinct categories of employees who were governed by different conditions of service as regards pay perquisites allowances administrative powers etc
After heating the arguments of both the sides the learned Judges of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition
The High Court did not find any unconstitutionality in a rule or regulation providing the age of retirement at 60 years of employees who had been absorbed from the service of the erstwhile insurers and to that extent it observed that one could say that the grouping being reasonable the Court might not travel into the domain of legislative policy
It however found that when once a transferred employee belonging to Class III and an employee appointed after 1st September 1956 by the Corporation to a Class III post are promoted to Class I the distinction of transferred employee and direct appointee could not be maintained as on promotion they became persons belonging to the same category of employees enjoying the same conditions of service
Hence the age of retirement should be the same in the case of both such promoters
It accordingly held that the 1st Respondent was entitled to continue till he attained the age of 60 years as other Class I employees belonging to the category of transferred employees
Aggrieved by the judgment of 204 the High Court the Corporation and the Union of India have filed these appeals by special leave
It should be stated at the outset that some of the questions raised before us are already covered by pronounce ments made by this Court
The object of enacting section 11 of the Act is dealt with in
detail by this Court in the Life Insurance Corporation of India vs DJ Bahadur  Ors  which unfortunately was not brought to the notice of the High Court
Krishna Iyer J at pages 1098 1099 has observed in the course of the said decision thus The Corporation to begin with had to take over the staff of the private insurers lest they should be thrown out of employment on nationalisation
These private compa nies had no homogenous policy regarding conditions of serv ice for their personnel but when these heterogenous crowds under the same management the Corporation divergent emolu ments and other terms of service could not survive and broad uniformity became a necessity
Thus the statutory transfer of service from former employers and standardization of scales of remuneration and other conditions of employment had to be and were taken care of by section 11 of the Life Insur ance Corporation Act 1956 for short the LIC Act
The obvious purpose of this provision was to enable the Corpora tion initially to absorb the motley multitudes from many companies who carried with them varying incidents of service so as to fit them into a fair pattern regardless of their antecedent contracts of employment or industrial settlements or awards
It was elementary that the Corporation could not perpetuate incongruous features of service of parent insur ers and statutory power had to be vested to vary modify or supersede these contracts geared to fair equitable and as far as possible uniform treatment of the transferred staff
Unless there be unmistakable expression of such intention the ID Act will continue to apply to the Corporation employ ees
The office of section 11 of the LIC Act was to provide for a smooth take over and to promote some common conditions of service in a situation where a jungle of divergent contracts of employment and industrial awards or settlements confront ed the State
Unless such rationalisation and standardiza tion were evolved the ensuing chaos would itself have spelt confusion conflicts and difficulties
The functional focus of section 11 205 of the LIC Act will dispel scope for interpretative exer cises unrelated to the natural setting in which the problem occurs
 Pathak J as he then was in his judgment in the same case observed at pages 1134 to 1136 thus The first question is whether the new clause 9 of the Standardisation Order succeeds in defeating the claim of the workmen
To determine that section 11 of the Corporation Act must be examined
Sub section
1 guarantees to the trans ferred employee the same tenure at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions on the transfer to the Corporation as he enjoyed on the appointed day under the insurer and he is entitled to them until they are duly altered by the Corporation or his employment in the Corpora tion is terminated
The sub section envisages alteration by the Corporation
Sub section
2 of section 11 by its first limb confers power on the Central Government to alter the scales of remuneration and other terms and conditions of service applicable to transferred employees
Predictably when the transferred employees of different insurers were brought together in common employment under the Corporation they would have been enjoying different scales of remuneration and other terms and conditions of service
The power under this part of sub section
2 is intended for the purpose of securing uniformity among them
The second limb of sub section
2 is the source of controversy before us
It empowers the Central Government to reduce the remuneration payable or revise the other terms and conditions of service
That power is to be exercised when the Central Government is satisfied that the interests of the Corporation and its Policy holders require such reduction of revision
The question is whether the provision is confined to transferred employees only or extends to all employees generally
In my opinion it is confined to transferred employees
The provision is a part of the scheme enacted in Chapter IV providing for the trans fer of existing life insurance business from the insurers to the Corporation and the attendant concomitants of that process
There is provision for the transfer of the assets and liabilities pertaining to the business of provident funds 206 superannuation and other like funds of the services of existing employees of insurers to the Corporation and also of the services of existing employees of chief agents of the insurers to the Corporation and finally for the payment of compensation to the insurers for the transfer of the busi ness to the Corporation
They are all provisions relating to the process of transfer
Sub section
2 of section 11 is a part of that process involving as it does the integration of the Corporation s staff and labour force
While the first limb of the sub section provides for securing uniformity among the transferred employees in regard to the scales of remu neration and other terms and conditions of service the second limb provides that if after such uniformity has been secured or even in the process of securing such uniformity the Central Government finds that the interests of the Corporation and its policy holders require a reduction in the remuneration payable or revision of the other terms and conditions of service applicable to those employees it may make an order accordingly
It is true that the words em ployees or any class of them in the second limb are not prefaced by the qualifying word transferred or such
But that was hardly necessary when regard is had to the mosaic of sections in which the provision is located
Admittedly the first limb of sub section
2 relates to transferred employ ees only and it must be held that so does the second limb
Both provisions are intended to constitute a composite process for rationalising the scales of remuneration and other terms and conditions of service of transferred employ ees with a view not only to effecting a standardisation between the transferred employees but also to revising their scales of remuneration and terms and conditions of service to a pattern which will enable the newly established Corpo ration to become a viable and commercially successful enter prise
The standpoint of the second limb of the sub section as its language plainly indicates is provided by the inter ests of the Corporation and its policy holders
For that reason it is open to the Central Government under sub section to ignore the guarantee contained in sub section 1 of section 11 in favour of the employees or anything contained in the  or any other law for the time being in force or any award settlement or agree ment for the time being in force
Benefits conferred there under on the employees must yield 207 to the need for ensuring that the Corporation and its policy holders do not suffer unreasonably from the burden of such benefits
The need for such a provision arises because it is a burden by which the Corporation finds itself saddled upon the transfer a burden not of its own making
Unless the statute provided for such relief the weight of that burden could conceivably cripple the successful working of the Corporation from its inception as a business organisation
It is a situation to be distinguished from what happens when the Corporation launched on its normal course voluntarily assumes in the course of its working obligation in respect of its employees or becomes subject to such obligations by reason of subsequent industrial adjudication
Like any other employer the Corporation is then open to the normal play of industrial relations in contemporary or future time
That the two provisions of sub section
2 are linked with the process of transfer and integration is further indicated by the circumstances that the power thereunder is vested in the Central Government
The scheme of the sections in Chapter IV indicates generally that Parliament has appointed the Cen tral Government as the effective and direct instrumentality for bringing about the transfer and integration in the different sectors of that process
There is no danger of an order made by the Central Government under the second limb of sub section 2 in respect of transferred employees being struck down on the ground that it violates the equality provisions of Part 111 of the Constitution because similar action has not been taken in respect of newly recruited employees
So long as such order is confined to what is necessitated by the proc ess of transfer and integration the transferred employees constitute a reasonably defined class in themselves and form no common basis with newly recruited employees underlining by us emphasis supplied Pathak J also observed at Page 1136 thus Another point is whether the power under the second limb of sub section
2 of section 11 can be exercised more than once
Clearly the answer must be in the affirmative
To effectuate the transfer appropriately and completely it may be necessary to pass through different stages and at each 208 stage to make a definite order
So long as the complex of orders so made is necessarily linked with the process of transfer and integration it is immaterial that a succession of orders is made
I am not impressed by the circumstances that the original Bill moved in Parliament for amending sub section
2 of section 11 contained the words from time to time and that these words were subsequently deleted when enact ment took place
The intent of the legislative provision must be discovered primarily from the legislation itself
 We have given extracts from the above decisions which are fairly long since they relate to the identical provi sions of law and also cover a large part of the arguments urged before us
Having regard to the different conditions of service that were prevailing in the various establishments whose business was taken over by the Corporation it can hardly be disputed that the fixation of age of superannuation is one of the essential parts of the process of transfer and inte gration to which sub section 2 of section 11 of the Act is applicable
The fixation of 60 years as the age of superan nuation in the case of transferred employees cannot be considered to be unreasonable in view of the history of this case
The observation made by Pathak J in the course of his judgment that there is no danger of an order made by the Central Government under the second limb of sub section 2 in respect of transferred employeesbeing struck down on the ground that it violates the equality provisions of Part III of the Constitution because similar action has not been taken in respect of newly recruited employees is signifi cant
A discrimination made by a State between the employees who are directly recruited to the service of the State and the employees whose services are taken over by the State on the taking over of the institutions where they were working has been held to be not unconstitutional by this Court in Ram Lal Wadhwa  Anr
vs The State of Haryana  Ors  The facts of that case were these
There were some schools run by municipal boards and district boards in the then State of Punjab which were taken over by the Punjab Government with effect from October 1 1957
The teachers then employed in those schools thus became State employees
Those teachers called provincialised  teachers were to be given the same grades of pay and other allowances as were given to their counterparts in Government employment
The teachers in Government employment were governed by the Punjab Educational Service Class III School Cadre Rules 1955
On February 13 1961 the Punjab Government promulgat ed under the proviso to Article 309 of 209 the Constitution the Punjab Educational Service Provincia lised Cadre Class III Rules giving them retrospective effect from October 1 1957
By these Rules the provincia lised teachers were treated as failing under a Cadre sepa rate and distinct from teachers in the State Cadre governed by the 1955 Rules
The provincialised  Cadre was to be a diminishing cadre to become extinct in course of time
There was to be no further recruitment to that cadre and all vacancies arising in that cadre were to be replenished by direct recruitment to the State cadre
The transfer of such posts to the State cadre was to be done by splitting up such vacant posts into blocks of 7 and 6 by rotation
Consequent ly the selection grade of 15 in the State cadre progres sively increased in strength which was determined by the total cadre strength while the selection grade in the pro vincialised cadre progressively decreased
Thus those re cruited to the State cadre had a progressively larger chance of getting into the selection grade
In State of Punjab vs Joginder Singh 1963 Supp 2 SCR 169 this Court upheld the validity of the 196 1 Rules repelling challenge under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
In the view of the majority in that case the two cadres started as independent services they were never integrated into one service and therefore the dissimilarity of the treatment by the Rules was not a denial Of equal opportunity
But the Punjab Government never implemented the Rules at any time
On the reorganisation of the erstwhile Punjab State into Punjab and Haryana on November 1 1966 the Haryana Government put the 1961 Rules into operation
The petitioners in the above case ie Ram Lal Wadhwa  Anr
vs The State of Haryana  Ors supra appointed in the local bodies Schools before provincialisation  challenged the validity of the 1961 Rules
Their complaint was that the Rules created without any valid justification two cadres the State cadre and the provincialised cadre the former including not only the Government School teachers but also those recruited after October 1 1957 and posted in the provincialised schools that by reason of having two cadres and providing for both a uniform 15 per cent for selection grade posts coupled with making the provincialised cadre a diminishing one the result had been that teachers deemed to have been appointed to the State cadre with effect from October 1 1957 and even those recruited thereafter had been promoted to the selec tion grade while those in the provincialised cadre though senior in service and performed identical duties and had identical scales of pay remained in the ordinary grade
According to the petitioners in that case these Rules and their implementation contravened Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
The petitioners in that petition contended that the earlier decision of this Court in State of Punjab vs Joginder Singh supra required reconsideration
In the 210 course of its decision this Court while rejecting the con tention of the petitioners observed thus at pages 635 636 The principles on which discrimination and breach of articles 14 and 16 can be said to result have been by now so well settled that we do not think it necessary to repeat them here once again
As already seen ever since 1937 and even before the two categories of teachers have always remained distinct governed by different sets of rules recruited by different authorities and having otherwise than in the matter of pay scales and qualifications differ ent conditions of service
This position remained as late as February 13 1961
On that day whereas the State cadre teachers were governed by 1955 Rules rules had yet to be framed for the provincialised cadre a diminishing one and bringing about ultimately through that principle one cadre only in the field in a phased manner
If through historical reasons the teachers had remained in two separate catego ries the classification of the provincialised teachers into a separate cadre could not be said to infringe article 14 and article 16
It was also not incumbent on the Government to frame the 1961 Rules uniformly applicable to both the cate gories of teachers firstly because a rule framing authori ty need not legislate for all the categories and can select for which category to legislate see Sakhawat Ali vs State of Orissa  Madhubhai Amathalal Gandhi vs The Union of India  and Vivian Joseph Ferreria vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay  and secondly because it had already come to a decision of gradually diminishing the provincia lised cadre so that ultimately only the state cadre would remain in the service
That was one way of solving the intricate difficulty of inter se seniority
There can be no doubt that if there are two categories of employees it is within Government s power to recruit in one and not re cruit in the other
There is no right in a government em ployee to compel it to make fresh appointments in the cadre to which he belongs
It cannot also be disputed that govern ment had the power to make rules with retrospective effect and therefore could provide therein that appointments made between October 1 1957 and February 13 1961 shall be treated as appointments in the State cadre
That had to be done for the simple reason that 211 the provincialised cadre was already frozen even before October 1 1957 and Government had decided not to make fresh appointments in that cadre since that cadre was to be a diminishing one
 It has to be observed in the case before us also that the transferred employees belong to a diminishing cadre
When the Corporation was established they were about 27000 in number and we are informed today that there are only about 22 of those employees in service
Already 30 years have elapsed from the date of the establishment of the Corporation
All the transferred employees who have already retired have retired only after completion 60 years
The remaining transferred employees are likely to go out of office within a short period
Thereafter only the employees who are directly recruited by the Corporation who are about 54000 in number would continue to remain in its service
The observation made by this Court in Ram Lal Wadhwa  Anr
v The State of Haryana  Ors
 supra clearly applies to the case before us also
As this stage we should refer to another aspect of the case presented before us which relates to 16 persons who were appointed as the employees of the Corporation by virtue of an Order dated March 15 1966
There was a department in existence in the year 1963 called Department of Insurance
The Government and the Corporation felt that the services 16 persons who were working in the Department of Insurance were required by the Corporation
Accordingly the President of India agreed to release 16 persons from the service of the Government of India to enable the Corporation to appoint them in its service by the Order of the Central Government dated 25th February 1964
The resignation of those 16 persons from the service of the Government of India was accepted on 15th March 1966 and from that date those per sons became the employees of the Corporation
Out of those 16 13 have already retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years
Only three of them are now in the service of the Corporation
One of them is no longer an employee of the Corporation since he is holding the post of the Chairman of the Corporation
The second of them is due toretire within 23 months and only one of them would continue in the service of the Corporation for about a period of two years more
In the case of those 16 people the Corporation passed a separate order fixing their age of retirement as 60 years having regard to the negotiations which had taken place between the Corporation and the Government before the taking over of their services by the Corporation
They again belong to a different category altogether and 212 the fixation of the age of retirement in their case at 60 years cannot be challenged by those who were directly re cruited by the Corporation after September 1 1956 as there is no similarity between them and the said 16 officers
The next question for consideration is whether the fixation of 58 years as the age of superannuation in the case of the employees who entered the service after 1st September 1956 is unreasonable
While dealing with this question the Court can take judicial notice of the differ ent ages of retirement prevailing in the several services in India
In almost all the public sector corporations Central services and State services 58 years age is considered to be a reasonable age at which officers can be directed to retire from their service
So the determination of 58 years as the age of superannuation by itself cannot be considered to be arbitrary
We do not also find much substance in the contention of the 1st Respondent that there cannot be any discrimination as regards the age of retirement between the employees belonging to Class I and Class II on the one hand and Class III and Class IV on the other
It is true that originally employees belonging to Class III and Class IV categories amongst the transferred employees were given the benefit of retirement at the age of 60 years but the employees belong ing to Class III and Class IV categories recruited after 1st September 1956 were required to retire on the completion of 58 years of age
In the Settlement which was arrived at between the management and the Class III and Class IV em ployees recruited after 1st September 1956 it was agreed that there should be no discrimination as regards the age of retirement between the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV categories amongst the transferred employees and the Class III and Class IV employees recruited after 1st September 1956
It was pursuant to the said settlement that regulation 19 was amended with effect from 1961965
Having regard to the lower emoluments and other benefits which the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV are entitled to get from the Corporation and the higher emoluments and other benefits to which officers belonging to Class I and Class II are entitled and also the nature of their work and the powers enjoyed by them we are of the view that fixation of different ages of retirement to the different classes of employees would not by itself be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
In Tejinder Singh and Another vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Anr 1986 4 SCC 237 this Court has observed at page 239 thus 213 This Court in Workmen vs Bharat Petroleum Corpn
Ltd directed the retirement age of the clerical staff of the Refinery Division of respondent 1 to be fixed at 60 years
Petitioners have contended that the disparity in the age of retirement between two groups of employees gives rise to discriminatory treatment
This stand is not tenable for more than one reason
Clerical staff and officers of the manage ment staff belong to separate classifications and no argu ment is necessary in support of it
Petitioners have not contended and perhaps could not legitimately contend that the two classes of officers stand at par
In the Workmen case itself this Court did not extend the benefit of super annuation at the age of 60 to all clerical staff but limited the same to that category of employees working in the Refin ery Division Bombay
Classification on the basis of reason able differentia is a well known basis and we are of the view that the petitioners are not entitled in the facts of the case to seek support from Article 14 for their claim
 It was however contended on behalf of the 1st Respond ent that since he had been recruited originally into the Class III post and he would have had the benefit of retire ment at the age of 60 years if he had remained in that Class the said benefit cannot be denied to him on his promotion to the Class I category
We do not find any merit in this contention too
When the 1st Respondent was promoted to the Class I post in 1963 the age of retirement of offi cers in the Class I post had been fixed at 58 years and was not different from the age of retirement of Class III em ployees
It was only in 1965 under the settlement the age of retirement of employees in Class III and Class IV who joined service after September 1 1956 was raised to 60 years
If he felt that the conditions of service of Class I officers were likely to be prejudicial to him he could have refused the promotion offered to him
Having accepted the promotion along with the higher benefits flowing from it he cannot contend after several years that he had been prejudicially affected by the condition relating to the age of retirement applicable to Class I officers appointed after September 1 1956
That apart the higher emoluments and other perquisites to which Class I employees may be entitled to and the better conditions of work which are enjoyed by them substantially compensate the effect of the lowering of the age of retire ment from 60 years to 58 years
We do not find any substance in the argument urged on behalf of the 1st Respondent rely ing upon the judgment of this Court in Roshan Lal Tandon vs Union of India  which lays down that when employees are 214 recruited to a lower grade from two sources no favourable treatment should be extended to recruits from one source on their promotion to the higher grade
In the decision re ferred to above the facts were these
Vacancies in grade D  of Train Examiners were filled by a direct recruits ie apprentice train examiners who had completed the prescribed period of training and b promoters from skilled artisans Promotion from grade D  to C  was on the basis of seniority cum suitability
In October 1965 the Railway Board issued a notification by which it was provided that eighty percent of the vacancies in grade C  were to be filled up from apprentice train examiners recruitment
or after April 1 1966 and the remaining twenty per cent by train examiners from grade D 
The notification further provided that apprentice train examiners who had already been absorbed in grade D  before April 1966 should en bloc be accommodated in grade C  in the eighty per cent of the vacancies without undergoing any selection and with regard to twenty per cent of the vacancies reserved for the other class promotion was to be on selection basis and not on the basis of seniority cum suitability
The petitioner in the said case who entered Railway service in 1954 as a skilled artisan and was selected and confirmed in grade D  chal lenged that part of the notification which gave favourable treatment to apprentice train examiners who had already been absorbed in grade D  as arbitrary and discriminatory anti violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
This Court held that when once the direct recruits and promoters were absorbed in one cadre they formed one class and they could not be distinguished again for the purpose of further promotion to the higher grade C  The Court further ob served that before the impugned notification was issued there was only one rule of promotion applicable to both direct recruits and promoters but by the impugned notifica tion discriminatory treatment was made in favour of the apprentice train examiners who had already been absorbed in grade D 
The Court therefore held that the notification was discriminatory
This decision has no relevance to the present case although the High Court has relied on it in deciding this case
We have already shown that the Act itself made a distinction between the transferred employees and the employees recruited to the service of the Corpora tion after 1st September 1956 by making amendments in section II and in clauses b and bb of sub section 2 of section 49 of the Act
In the Staff Regulations 1956 and the Staff Regulations 1960 there was again a distinction made between the transferred employees and employees re cruited after 1st September 1956
We find that the distinc tion between the two classes is recognised by Parliament even as late as 1981 when it amended section 49 of the Act by deleting clause bb of sub section 2 thereof and by 215 amending section 48 of the Act by introducing clause cc in subsection 2 and the new sub section 2A in it
After the amendment the relevant part of section 48 reads thus 48
2        cc
The terms and conditions of service of the employees and agents of the Corporation including those who became employees and agents of the Corporation on the appointed day under this Act       2A
The regulations and other provisions as in force immediately before the commencement of the Life Insurance Corporation Amendment Act 1981 with respect to the terms and conditions of service of employees and agents of the Corporation including those who became employees and agents of the Corpo ration on the appointed day under this Act shall be deemed to be rules made under clause cc of sub section 2 and shall subject to the other provisions of this section have effect accordingly underlining by us empha sis supplied Clause cc of section 482 of the Act however has been given retrospective effect from 20th June 1979
Sub section 2A of section 48 has given statutory recognition to the Staff Regulations of 1960 and in particular to Regulation 192 as amended in 1977 which is impugned in these proceedings
It is thus seen that at no point of time the transferred employees were integrated into one cadre along with the employees appointed after September 1 1956 as such and the transferred employees have retained their birth marks throughout
The fact that the pay allowances and other conditions of service have been made the same in respect of both the transferred employees and the employees of the Corporation recruited after 1st September 1956 has not brought about the integration of the two classes of employees into one single cadre
Even the High Court in the instant case accepts that it was just and proper to extend the benefit of the higher age of retirement to the trans ferred employees but it has held that when once a trans ferred employee is promoted he would lose the right to a special treatment as regards the age of superannuation
The relevant portion of the judgment of the High Court reads thus A reasonable classification which prevents a Court from dissecting it is one which includes all persons who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose of law or 216 objective which the rule or section seeks to achieve
The apparent or inherent intention sought to be achieved by the regulation 19 framed by Corporation was to continue upto age of sixty years the employees of insurers as the age of superannuation in some of the companies was sixty and to derive benefit from expertise and experience of employees who had worked with insurers
May be laudable reason able and proper
But is it like that Obvious ly not
An employee in Class III of insurer could be continued upto sixty
But what hap pens when he climbs the ladder of promotion and reaches Class I
Does he still carry the stamp of experience and expertise of having worked with insurer Once a transferred em ployee of Class III and a direct appointee in that class are promoted to Class I obviously on merit efficiency and seniority then how can the distinction of transferred  and direct  be maintained
So long employees are in Class III they can be said to constitute two different classes of transferred and direct appointees but once they are promoted they become similarly situated and the dis tinction stands obliterated
They on promotion form one integrated cadre of Class I officers
To segregate them here for purposes of retire ment is invidious when their pay responsibil ity and benefits are same
 While we agree with the first part of the observations made in the above extract from the judgment of the High Court namely that it was not discriminatory to extend the benefit of the age of 60 years to the transferred employees we do not agree with the latter part of the observations made therein which suggests that on promotion from Class III to Class I the transferred employees and the directly re cruited employees would lose their birth marks
Pathak J as he then was has observed in DJ Bahadur s case supra that it is open to the Government to make an order trader section 112 of the Act from time to time in respect of the transferred employees and that power is not exhausted when it is exercised once
It suggests that the transferred employees are always amenable for separate treatment and they do not lose their identity
It appears to be the inten tion of Parliament that even as late as in 1981 that the two categories of employees namely the transferred employees and employees recruited after 1st September 1956 in the Corporation should be kept separate
In these circumstances the High Court was in error in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Roshan Lal Tandon s case supra
217 In OP No 5295 of 1985 and connected cases on the file of the High Court of Kerala which was decided on 42
1987 the claim of the employees of the Corporation belonging to class I but appointed after 1st September 1956 to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years arose for consideration
The High Court has negatived it
In the course of its judgment it has referred to the judgment under appeal in this case but has only distinguished it
The High Court of Kerala was right in not following the decision of the High Court of Allahabad which is now under appeal
It however distinguished it on the ground that the employees in question had not been promoted from Class III to Class I as it was the case here but the petitioners before it had continued in Class I or Class 11 right from the commence ment
We however approve of the reasons given by the High Court of Kerala in holding that the employees of the Corpo ration belonging to Class I and Class II who had entered service of the Corporation after 1st September 1956 were not entitled to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years
In our view the fact that an employee had entered the service of the Corporation after September 1 1956 in a Class III post and is later on promoted to a Class I post does not make any difference in so far as the question which arises for decision before us
The High Court of Delhi has rejected two petitions in which the very question raised in this case arose for consideration namely NL Aneja vs Union of India and Others Civil Writ No 1911 of 1986 and HS Kochar vs LIC of lndia  Ors CW No 1660 of 1986 at the stage of admission itself giving reasons though short for its orders
The two decisions referred to above have been rendered by two different Division Benches
We may also refer to one decision of the Madras High Court and another decision of the Calcutta High Court which arose trader the provisions of the Banking Companies Acqui sition and Transfer of Undertakings Act 1970 Act 5 to 1970 where again the claim of employees of the banks in question who joined their service after nationalisation to the benefit of the conditions prescribed in the case of employees of the former banking companies whose services were taken over on nationalisation as regards the age of retirement arose for consideration
The scheme of section 122 of the and the scheme of section 111 of the Act which is trader consideration before us were the same
In Govindarajulu vs The Management of Union Bank of India  Ors Writ Petition No 5486 of 1980 the High Court of Madras rejected the said claim by its judgment dated 2111
In Dr Nikhil Bhushan Chandra vs Union of India  Ors Civil Order 218 No 13958 W of 1980 decided on December 21 1982 the High Court of Calcutta has rejected a similar claim
We may at this stage refer to a recent decision of this Court in Miss Lena Khan vs Union of India and Ors
 JT decided on 303
1987 in which the validity of the continua tion of some foreign Air Hostesses beyond the prescribed age of retirement came up for consideration
The Court rejected the petition stating that the management of Air India having taken a decision to phase out UK incumbents when they attain the age of 45 it was not discriminatory to Air Hostesses of Indian origin who were to retire at the age of 35 years and was not unconstitutional
The principle enunci ated in this case can be applied to the cases of three officers who belong to the Department of Insurance who joined the service of the Corporation after resigning their posts in the Government of India in the year 1965 there being no chance of any addition to their class
Classification of employees into two categories for purposes of fixing the age of superannuation depending upon their dates of entry into service when the necessity for doing so arises on account of certain historical reasons is not unknown
This Court had to deal with a case involving a similar situation in Railway Board vs A Pitchumani  Several railway companies which were running their own railways in different parts of India were amalaga mated with the Indian Railway Administration in 1947
On such amalagamation servants of the railway companies whose railways were taken over became the employees of the Indian Railway Administration
On the absorption of the services of the servants of the previous railway companies it became necessary for the Indian Railway Administration to frame rules with regard to their conditions of service including the determination of the age of retirement of those railway employees
Accordingly rule 2046 FR 56 of the Indian Railway Fundamental Rules had to be modified
That rule was therefore substituted by a new rule on January 11 1967
The new rule read as follows 2046
56 a Except as otherwise provided in this rule every railway servant shall retire on the day he attains the age of fifty eight years
A ministerial railway servant who entered Government service on or before the 31st March 1938 and held on that date i a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post or 219 ii a permanent post in a provision al substantive capacity under Clause d of Rule 2008 and continued to hold the same without interruption until he was confirmed in that post shall be retained in service till the day he attains the age of sixty years
NOTE For the purpose of this Clause the expression Government Service includes service rendered in ex company and ex State Railways and in a former provincial Govern ment
 In the above new rule every railway servant whose case did not fall under clause b of that rule was required to retire on the date he attained the age of 58 years
Clause b however provided that every ministerial railway serv ant who had entered the Government service on or before 31st March 1938 and who satisfied the conditions mentioned either in sub clause i or sub clause ii thereof was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years
As may be seen from that rule the classification of the employees was made on the basis of the date of entry into the service of the Government
That clause b of the said rule applied also to the employees of ex companies and ex State railways which were taken over by the Indian Rail way Administration is clear from the note attached to clause b of rule 2046 which provided that for the purpose of that clause the expression Government Service  included service rendered in ex company and ex State railways and in a former provincial Government
On December 27 1967 the Indian Railway Administration substituted the note attached to clause b of rule 2046 by the new note which read thus For the purpose of this clause the expression Government Service  includes service rendered in a former provincial gov ernment and in ex company and ex State Rail ways if the rules of the Company or the State had a provision similar to Clause b above The effect of the new note was that an employee who satis fied the condition in sub section i or sub clause ii of clause b was entitled to continue upto 60 years after December 23 1967 only if the rules of the company in which he was formerly working had a provision similar to clause b of rule 2046 which fixed the age of retirement at 60 years
220 The Respondent in that case that is A Pitchumani while he was entitled before December 23 1967 to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years as he had joined the service of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company on August 16 1927 ie prior to March 31 1938 and satis fied the other conditions mentioned in clause b of rule 2046 could not have the benefit of that clause on and after December 23 1967 since in the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company where he was formerly working there was no rule similar to clause b as regards the age of retirement
He was asked to retire from service on April 14 1968 on which date he was completing the age of 58 years
The Re spondent A Pitchumani questioned before the High Court of Mysore Karnataka the validity of the note substituted by the Order dated December 23 1967 which took away his right to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years which he otherwise possessed before the introduction of the said note
The High Court of Mysore struck down a part of the new note only on the ground that it was discriminatory and directed that the Respondent A Pitchumani should be allowed to continue in the service till he completed the age of 60 years
On appeal the judgment of the High Court was affirmed by this Court in Railway Board vs A Pitchumani supra
This Court did not find fault with the classifica tion that had been made between the persons falling under clause a and persons falling under clause b on the basis of the date of entry into service since clauses a and b of rule 2046 had uniform application to all the employees of the Indian Railway Administration who came within the re spective clauses
It however agreeing with the High Court found fault with the classification of the employees falling under clause b into two categories namely those employ ees belonging to a company where there was a rule similar to clause b as regards the age of superannuation and those employees who came from companies where there was no rule similar to clause b as regards the age of superannuation
In Manindra Chandra Sen vs Union of India  Ors
AIR 1973 CAL
385 Sabyasachi Mukharji J has upheld the said classi fication of railway employees into two categories viz those who joined on or before 313 1938 and those who joined after 313 1938 for purposes of fixing the age of superan nuation on the basis of same historical facts which are set out in detail in that judgment
Such classification for purposes of fixing the age of superannuation depending upon the date of entry into services is not therefore something which is unusual and such classification becomes necessary on account of historical facts and the need for treating the employees in a fair and just way
221 On behalf of the 1st Respondent reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Ms British Paints India Ltd vs The Workmen  in support of his case that there should be no discrimination amongst the employees of an establishment with regard to the age of superannuation
That decision was rendered in an appeal against an award passed by an Industrial Tribunal
In that decision this Court has no doubt observed that generally speaking there should not be any difference in the age of retirement of existing workmen and others to be employed in future unless there are special circumstances justifying such difference
By making the above observation this Court has virtually accepted the position that when there are special circumstances justifying the difference it is open to fix different ages of retirement for the employees of an establishment in appropriate cases
We have already ex plained earlier the reason for treating the transferred employees differently from the employees appointed after 1st September 1956 by the Corporation
The transferred employ ees who are treated favourably belong to a vanishing group and perhaps within a period of few years none of them would be in the service of the Corporation
Thereafter only one class of employees would be in the service of the Corpo ration namely those appointed subsequent to 1st September 1956 by the Corporation in respect of whom the Corporation has fixed the age of retirement as 58 years which corre sponds to the age of retirement in almost all the public sector establishments the Central Government services and the State Government services
The 1st Respondent cannot derive any assistance from the decision of this Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors etc
  in support of his case before us
In the above decision this Court was concerned with reservation of posts for graduate Supervisors in the cadre of Assistant Engineers giving them a preferen tial treatment over non graduate Supervisors who were also eligible to be promoted along with the graduate Supervisors to the cadre to Assistant Engineers after the graduates and non graduates had been integrated into one cadre of Supervi sors
Merely because the pay allowances and other perqui sites drawn by the transferred employees and by the employ ees appointed after 1st September 1956 by the Corporation are the same it cannot be said that the transferred employ ees and the other employees had been integrated so as to form one cadre
So far as the age of retirement is concerned as it is already shown they are being treated differently right from the date on which the Corporation was estab lished
The decision of this Court in Workmen of the Bharat Petrole um 222 Corporation Ltd Refining Division Bombay vs Bharat Petro leum Corporation Ltd and Another  no doubt lays down that under the modern conditions there is a general trend in favour of raising the age of retirement in the case of employees in industrial establishments
It may be so
We are not concerned in this case with the question whether the age of retirement of employees who have joined the service of the Corporation after 1st September 1956 should be raised to 60 years
That is a matter of policy which has got to be decided by the Corporation and the Central Government
We are only concerned with the question whether the employees appointed after 1st September 1956 have been subjected to any hostile discrimination while fixing the age of retirement contrary to Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution
Since the classification of the employees for the purpose of age of retirement into two categories in this case appears to us to be reasonable and not arbitrary and that there is a reasonable nexus between the classification and the object to be attained thereby it is not possible to hold that regulation 192 is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
We may at this stage refer to the following passage in Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial  General Subor dinate Service Association vs State of Tamil Nadu  Anr  In Service Jurisprudence integration is a complicated administrative problem where in doing broad justice to many some bruise to a few cannot be ruled out
Some play in the joints even some wobbing must be left to Government without fussy forensic monitoring since the administration has been entrusted by the Constitution to the Executive not to the Court
All life including administrative life involves experiment trial and error but within the leading strings of fundamental rights and absent unconstitutional exces ses  judicial correction is not right
Under Article 32 this Court is the constitutional sentinel not the national ombudsman
We need an ombudsman but the court cannot make do page 1031 The decision taken by the Corporation and the Central Government as regards the ages of retirement of the differ ent classes of the employees of the Corporation in the instant case is a bona fide one and cannot be characterised as unreasonable
It is not therefore liable to be upset by a decision of the Court
On a careful consideration of all 223 the aspects of the case we feel that the High Court erred in striking down regulation 192 of the Staff Regulations 1960 as amended in the year 1977 and in directing the Corporation to continue the 1st Respondent in its service till he completed the age of 60 years
We therefore set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed in the High Court
The appeals are according ly allowed
There shall however be no order as to costs
NPV Appeals allowed


Summary:
The Life Insurance Corporation was established on Sep tember 1 1956 under the Life Insurance Act of 1956 Act 31 of 1956 by amalgamating about 200 insurers carrying on life insurance business in the country
It had no employees of its own to carry on the vast business which had been taken over and the nature of the work was such that the Corpora tion required the services of employees with experience and expertise in running life insurance business
In order to meet the above need Section 11 of the Act came to be enact ed
Sub section 1 provided that with effect from September 1 1956 every whole time employee of the erstwhile insurers would become an employee of the Corporation and hold office therein by the same tenure at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges as to pension and gratuity and other matters as he would have held on September 1 1956 had the Act not been passed
The conditions of service of the employees whose serv ices were transferred to the Corporation under Section 111 were not uniform
The conditions governing the retirement of those employees were also diverse and different
In some cases the age of retirement had been fixed at 55 years in some at 58 years and in some others at 60 years
In many cases the insurers had permitted their employees to contin ue in 181 their services even beyond 60 years depending upon their efficiency and physical capacity
For the purposes of rationalising the pay scales of the transferred employees under sub section 2 of Section 11 the Central Government was empowered to alter the terms of service of the employees as to their remuneration in such manner as it thought fit
The sub section was amended by Acts 17 and 36 01  1957
Clause bb of sub section 2 01  Section 49 conferred power on the Corporation to make regulations with the previ ous approval of the Central Government as regards the terms and conditions of service of persons who had become employ ees of the Corporation under subsection 1 01  Section 11 
Under clauses b and bb of Section 492 01  the Act Regulations were framed prescribing the ages of retirement of the employees of the Corporation belonging to different categories with the previous approval of the Central Govern ment and were incorporated in the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulations 1960 made by the Corporation which came into effect on July 1960
Under Regulation 191 all transferred employees were entitled to remain in service till they completed 60 years of age but the appointing authority was empowered to retire any such transferred employee on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter if his efficiency was found to have been impaired
Under Regulation 192 employees appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after September 1956 were required to retire on completion of 58 years of age but the appointing authority was empowered to retire any such employee on completion of 55 years of age or thereafter if his efficiency was found to have been im paired
In the case of the transferred employees this regulation was made in conformity with the standardisation order  passed in respect of Class III and Class IV transferred employees
in whose case the age of retirement was fixed at 60 years
The result was that the regulation made a clear and distinct classification 01  all the employees of the Corporation belonging to all classes into two groups transferred employees and the employees appointed after September 1 1956 for purposes of the age of retire ment having regard to the historical reasons
182 Consequent upon the settlement arrived at upon an industrial dispute which arose between Class III and Class IV employees who were appointed subsequent to September 1 1956 in the Corporation
Regulation 19 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulations 1960 which came into force wef
July 1 1960 was amended and the employees of the Corporation were divided both longitudinally and latitudinally insofar as the age of retirement was con cerned
Longitudinally all the transferred employees be longing to Class I and II became entitled to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years the Corpora tion being empowered to retire any of them prematurely on completion of 55 years of age if his efficiency was found to have been impaired and all the Class I and Class II offi cers appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after September 1 1956 had to retire on completion of 58 years of age subject again to the power of the Corporation to retire any such employee on completion of 55 years of age or at any time thereafter if his efficiency was found to have been impaired
Latitudinally the employees were divided into two groups and all the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV irrespective of the tact whether they were trans ferred employees or employees appointed after September 1 1956 were entitled to continue in service till 60 years of age but the employees belonging to Class I and Class II who were appointed to the service of the Corporation on or after September 1 1956 had to retire on the completion of 58 years of age subject to the usual clause relating to prema ture retirement
Sub regulation 2 of Regulation 19 was modified empow ering the appointing authority to extend at its discretion of service of any employee of the Corporation belonging to Class I or Class II categories appointed to service on or after September 1 1956 for one year at a time upto 60 years of age
The power to extend the service of employees belong ing to Class I and Class II appointed on or after September 1 1956 beyond 58 years or  age was withdrawn from January 21 1977 and the Corporation was permitted to retire an employee on completion of 50 years of age
The first respondent joined the Corporation as a Class III employee on March 22 1957
Subsequently he was promot ed to a Class I post and ultimately as Assistant Divisional Manager
Since he was born in the month of June 1926 notice was issued to him in February 1984 of his retirement which was due on June 30 1984 on his completing the age of 58 years
Before the date of his retirement he instituted a writ petition in the High Court questioning the validity of Regulation 192 of the Staff Regulations 1960 as it stood then and prayed for the issue 183 of writ of mandamus directing the Corporation not to retire him before he attained the age of 60 years
It was contended by the first respondent before the High Court that there was no justification to prescribe two different ages of retirement one for the transferred employ ees belonging to Class I and Class II categories and the other for the employees who joined the service of the Corpo ration alter September 1 1956 and who also belonged to Class I and Class II categories and that in regard to those who joined the service after being appointed to Class III post after September 1 1956 there could not be any reduc tion of age of retirement from 60 to 58 years on their being promoted to a Class I or Class II post
Since he had the right to continue in service if he had remained in Class III only till he attained the age of 60 years as a Class III employee age of retirement could not be reduced to 58 years only because he had been promoted to a Class I post
It was urged on behalf of the Corporation and the Union of India that the transferred employees and the employees who joined the service after September 1 1956 belonged to two distinct and separate classes which had been treated differently throughout for valid reasons
Since there was no uniformity in the establishments in which the transferred employees were working prior to nationalisation of the life insurance business it became necessary to fix the age of retirement of the transferred employees on a lair equitable and just basis
In the circumstances the classification of the employees into two categories namely transferred employees and others who joined on or after September 1 1956 for the purposes of age of superannuation was a valid classification and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution had not been violated
It was further submitted that the discrimination made between the employees belonging to Class I and Class II on the one hand and the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV on the other in the matter of the age of superannuation was not invalid since they belonged to two different categories of employees who were governed by different conditions of service as regards pay perquisites allowances administrative powers etc
The High Court did not find any unconstitutionality in a rule or regulation providing the age of retirement at 60 years of employees who had been absorbed from the service of the erstwhile insurers and to that extent it held that the grouping being reasonable the Court might not travel into the domain of legislative policy
It however found that when once a transferred employee belonging to Class III and an emp 184 loyee appointed after 1st September 1956 by the Corporation to a Class III post is promoted to Class I the distinction of the transferred employee and direct appointee could not be maintained as on promotion they became persons belonging to the same category of employees enjoying the same condi tions of service
Hence the age of retirement should be the same in the case of both such promotees
It accordingly held that the first respondent was entitled to continue till he attained the age of 60 years as other Class I employees belonging to the category of transferred employees
The Writ Petition was allowed and Regulation 192 was struck down as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the Corporation was directed not to retire the first respondent before he attained the age of 60 years
Allowing the appeals by special leave of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Union of India this Court HELD 11 The decision taken by the Corporation and the Central Government as regards the ages of retirement of the different classes of the employees of the Corporation is a bona fide one and cannot be characterised as unreasonable and it is not therefore liable to be upset by a decision of the Court
222G 12 In the instant case the High Court erred in strik ing down Regulation 192 of the LIC Staff Regulations 1960 as amended in the year 1977 and in directing the Corpo ration to continue the first respondent in its service till he completed the age of 60 years
223A 21 Classification of employees into two categories for purposes of fixing the age of superannuation depending upon the date of entry into service is not something which is unusual and such classification becomes necessary on ac count of historical facts and the need for treating the employees in a fair and just way
220G 22 Merely because the pay allowances and other perqui sites drawn by the transferred employees and by the employ ees appointed after September 1 1956 by the Corporation are the same it cannot be said that the transferred employees and the other employees had been integrated so as to form one cadre
So far as the age of retirement is concerned they are being treated differently right from the date on which the Corporation was established
221G 23 In the instant case since the classification of the employees for the purpose of age of retirement into two categories is reasonable 185 and not arbitrary and there is a reasonable nexus between the classification and the object to be attained thereby it is not possible to ho1d that Regulation 192 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
222C 3
The Act itself made a distinction between the trans ferred employees and the employees recruited to the service of the Corporation after September 1 1956 by making amend ments in Section 11 and in clauses b and bb of sub section 2 of Section 49 of the Act
In the Staff Regula tions 1956 and the Staff Regulations 1960 there was again a distinction made between the transferred employees and the employees recruited alter September 1 1956
The distinction between the two classes Is recognised by Parlia ment even as late as 1981 which it amended Section 49 of the Act by deleting clause bb of sub section 2 thereof and by amending Section 48
of the Act by introducing clause cc in sub section 2 and the new sub section 2A in it
At no point of time the transferred employees were integrat ed into one cadre alongwith employees appointed after Sep tember 1 1956 as such and the transferred employees have retained their birth marks throughout
The tact that the pay allowances and other conditions or services have been made the same in respect of both the transferred employees and the employees of the Corporation recruited after Septem ber 1 1956 has not brought about the integration of the two Classes of employees into one single cadre
214GH 215A E F 41 The determination of 58 years as age of superannua tion in the case of the employees who entered service after September 1 1956 by itself cannot be considered to be arbitrary since in almost all the public sector corpora tions Central services and the State services 58 years age is considered to be a reasonable age at which officers can be directed to retire from their service
212C 42 Regarding the dIscrimination in the age or  retire ment between employees belonging to Class I and Class II on the one hand and Class III and Class IV on the other it is true that originally employees belonging to Class III and Class IV categories amongst the transferred employees were given the benefit of retirement at the age of 60 years but the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV categories after 1st September 1956 were required to retire on the completion of 58 years of age
Pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the Management and the Class III and IV employees recruited after September 1 1956
this discrimi nation was removed and Regulation 19 was amended wef
June 19 1965
212D F 186 43 Having regard to the lower emoluments and other benefits which the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV are entitled to get from the Corporation and the higher emoluments and other benefits to which officers belonging to Class I and Class II are entitled to and also the nature of their work and the powers enjoyed by them fixation of different ages of retirement to the different classes of employees could not by itself be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
212F G 5
Having regard to different conditions of service that were prevailing in the various establishments whose business was taken over by the Corporation fixation of age of super annuation is one of the essential parts or  the process of transfer and integration to which sub section 2 of Section 11 of the Act is applicable
The fixation of 60 years as the age of superannuation in the case of transferred employees cannot be considered to be unreasonable in view of the history of this case
208C D 6
The transferred employees who are treated favourably belong to a vanishing group and perhaps within a period of two years none of them would be in the service of the Corpo ration
Thereafter only one class of employees would be in the service of the Corporation namely those appointed subsequent to September 1 1956 by the Corporation in re spect of whom the Corporation has fixed the age of retire ment as 58 years which corresponds to the age or  retirement in almost all the public sector establishments the Central Government services and the State Government services
221C E 7
The High Court was right in holding that it was not discriminatory to extend the benefit of the age of 60 years to the transferred employees
However it was not correct in holding that on promotion from Class III to Class I the transferred employees and the directly recruited employees would lose their birth marks
The intention of Parliament was that even as late as in 1981 the two groups of employ ees namely the transferred employees and employees re cruited after September 1 1956 in the Corporation should be kept separate
In these circumstances the High Court was in the error in holding that when employees are recruited to a lower grade from two sources no favourable treatment should be extended to recruits from one source on their promotion to the higher grade
The fact that an employee had entered the service of the Corporation after September 1 1956 in a Class III post and is later on promoted to a Class I post does not make any difference
216E H 217D 187 8
In the instant case when the first respondent was promoted to the Class I post in 1963 the age of retirement of officers in the Class I post had been fixed at 58 years and was not different from the age of retirement of Class III employees
It was only in 1965 under the settlement the age of retirement of employees in Class III and Class IV who joined service after September 1 1956 was raised to 60 years
If he felt that the conditions of service ill  Class I officers were likely to be prejudicial to him he could have refused the promotion offered to him
Having accepted the promotion alongwith the higher benefits flowing from it he cannot contend after several years that he had been prejudicially affected by the condition relating to the age of retirement applicable to Class I officers appointed after September 1 1956
That apart the higher emoluments and other perquisites to which Class I employees may be entitled to and the better conditions of work which are enjoyed by them substantially compensate the effect of the lowering of the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years
213E G Christopher Pimenta and Others vs Life Insurance Corpo ration of India  Life Insurance Corporation of India vs DJ Bahadur  Ors 1981 1 SCR 1083 Ram Lal Wadhwa  Anr
vs The State of Haryana  0rs
   State of Punjab vs Joginder Singh 1963 Supp 2 SCR 169 Tejinder Singh and Another vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Anr 1986 4 SCC 237 Roshan Lal Tandon vs Union of India 1968 1 SC11
185 Miss Lena Khan vs Union of India and Ors Jt  Railway Board vs A Pitchumani 1972 2 SCR 187 Manindra Chandra Sen vs Union of India  Ors AIR  Ms British Paints India Ltd vs The Work men   Mohammad Shujat Ali  Ors etc
vs Union of India  Ors etc
  Workmen of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd Refining Division Bombay vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Another   Tamil Nadu Education Department Minis terial  General Subordinate Service Association vs State of Tamil Nadu  Anr   referred to