*THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + W. P.NOs. 13272 & 13839 OF 2008 % 30.06.2008 Between: Ravi Majji Gouri Vara Prasad Rao & others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Govt. of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of HI & PE, Department of Heavy Industries. New Delhi & others. .....RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS: Sri V. Raghu ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Sri E. Manohar, Senior Counsel. < Gist: > Head Note: -Nil- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W. P.NOs. 13272 & 13839 OF 2008 COMON ORDER: The question that arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is identical. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioners are employees of the Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Limited, the 3rd respondent herein. The age of superannuation, for retiring from service of the 3rd respondent was 58 years. Vide Circular dated 28.5.1998, the 3rd respondent enhanced it to 60 years. However, this was rolled back, vide order dated 10.4.2001, and as of now, the age of superannuation is 58 years. All the petitioners were issued intimation, to the effect that they have to retire from service, on attaining the age of 58 years. The 3rd respondent became a sick unit, and proceedings are before the BIFR, for the past several years. In the recent past, the BHEL, the 2nd respondent herein, agreed in principle, to assume managerial control of the 3rd respondent. The petitioners submitted representation, dated 10.6.2008, stating that the age of superannuation, for the employees of the 2nd respondent, is 60 years, and in view of the merger, they may also be extended the benefit of the extended age of superannuation. These writ petitions are filed, stating that the action of the respondents, in proposing to retire the petitioners, at the age of 58 years, is illegal, arbitrary and indiscriminatory. Sri V. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that respondents 2 and 3 are Public Sector Undertakings, and once there has been merger, or take over, the conditions of service of the employees in both the units, must be identical. He submits that though the age of superannuation in the 3rd respondent was also 60 years, it was rolled back, on the sole ground that it is sick, and in view of the subsequent developments, the role back deserves to be ignored. At the stage of admission, respondents 2 and 3 took notice, and Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel, appeared for them. He contends that the rehabilitation package for revival of 3rd respondent, is yet to be approved and issued by the BIFR, and a proposal, which is yet to assume final shape, whereunder the 2nd respondent is to be conferred with the managerial control, cannot clothe the petitioners with the right to remain in service, beyond what is stipulated in their service conditions. The 3rd respondent is a Central Public Sector Undertaking, and it has its factory and office at Visakhapatnam. It has become sick, and the matter as regards its revival, is pending before the BIFR. The 2nd respondent, which is also a Central Public Sector Undertaking, has its factory and office at Hyderabad. An attempt appears to have been made to associate the 2nd respondent with the 3rd respondent, as part of the scheme for revival. It is not in dispute that no final decision has emerged, as yet. A clear picture would come out, only when the BIFR frames and approves the scheme. It is no doubt true that age of superannuation for the employees of the 2nd respondent, is 60 years, and those of the 3rd respondent, it is 58 years. The uniformity of service conditions can be claimed, only by the employees in the same organization. As of now, the 2nd respondent on the one hand, and the 3rd respondent on the other hand, are totally different legal and physical entities. Further, even where the merger becomes complete, the employees of a merged unit, cannot claim parity of service conditions, as a matter of right. What all law ensures to them is that the merger should not bring about any conditions of service, which are detrimental to their interests. As long as the service conditions are not altered, they do not have any legal right to seek treatment, on par with the employees of the unit, with which the sick unit is merged. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is every likelihood of the uniform service conditions being brought about, between the employees of respondents 2 and 3, and unless, the petitioners are continued in service, at least on notional basis and without salary, they would be put to hardship. It is difficult to accede to the request made on behalf of the petitioners. The employees cannot be continued in service, without payment of salary. The age of superannuation brings about automatic retirement, and continuance in service, beyond such date, is not possible. This court finds that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed by them. The writ petition are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 30th June 2008 Note: L.R. copies to be marked. (B/o) PAN