1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WRIT PETITION NO. 12 OF 2011. MORMUGAO PORT TRUST PENSIONER'S ASSOCIATION REP. BY SHRI SANTOSH RAGUVEER FADTE …...PETITIONER. V/S MORMUGAO PORT TRUST THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANR. …...RESPONDENTS. Mr. K. Mukherjee,Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General, for Respondent no.2. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 7 h April, 2011. P.C. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is now treated at the request of the Petitioners as an ordinary Writ Petition and not Public Interest Litigation, the prayer made to this Court is to issue a writ, order or a direction quashing the Notification dated 16.3.2001 of the Second Respondent and further a Writ of Mandamus directing Mormugao Port Trust to pay compensation to the members of the Petitioner's Association. 2 2. Petitioner is an Association, stated to have been formed on 11.7.2008. 3. It purports to represent the cause of retired employees of the Respondent(Port Trust). On a bare reading of the petition it is seen that the concerned employees have retired between 2001 and 2006. The grievance raised in the petition is that the retirement age of all employees working with Respondent no.1 is reduced from 60 to 58 years w.e.f. 31.5.2001. 4. On a query from the Court as to why the Petitioners have approached this Court in 2011 seeking to challenge this Notification all that is urged is that in para 8 of the petition, the reason and the explanation for delay has been set out. On perusal of said paragraph, we are of the view that this is not a satisfactory and reasonable explanation for the gross delay and laches in questioning the Notification. The Notification is of 16.3.2001 and brought into effect from 31.5.2001. Several employees who are stated to be the members of petitioner have retired at the age of 58, or retired voluntarily from the services of the first Respondent. After their retirement, they are now questioning the Notification reducing retirement age from 60 to 58 years and on the basis of the said challenge, claim several reliefs including compensation 3 which is stated to be the loss caused by lowering of the retirement age of the employees. 5. We are of the opinion that petition suffers from gross delay and laches. Petition is, therefore, dismissed on this ground alone. 6. Even otherwise what we find from the Notification which fixes the age of superannuation, that there is enough powers in the Government to reduce the retirement age from time-to-time. The Notification is legal and if any reference is necessary, a Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishnu Narain Misra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1567, which is followed in subsequent decisions would provide a complete answer. 7. In such circumstances, petition being devoid of any merit, is summarily dismissed. No costs. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. F. M. REIS, J. vn*