IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.2377 of 2002 Between: T.Surya Bhagvan and others … Appellant And Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board, Represented by its Deputy Chairman, Visakhapatnam. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.2377 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, eight in number, seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in depriving the benefit of voluntary retirement with 60 years as age of superannuation by withholding their V.R.S. applications for an unreasonable long time as arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondent to execute the monetary benefit under the said scheme to the petitioners by treating their age of superannuation as 60 years on par with similarly situated employees. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the respondent, Visakahpatnam Dock Labour Board, introduced voluntary retirement scheme on 03.05.2000, which has to be opted before 16.10.2000, with the benefit of 45 days salary for each completed year of service or salary for the remaining period of service, whichever is lesser, in addition to other benefits and at the relevant point of time, the age of retirement in the respondent organisation was 60 years. Several employees of the respondent, including petitioners, have opted for the same and submitted their applications to the concerned, in time. The respondent authorities while accepting the applications of other employees on selective basis, kept the applications of the petitioners pending and ultimately, their applications were accepted in the month of January/March, 2001. It is submitted by the petitioners that by the time of accepting their applications, the respondent has taken a decision to reduce the age of retirement in their organisation from 60 years to 58 years vide resolution dated 26.09.2000 which came into force w.e.f. 30.11.2000. Even though the applications of the petitioners were filed when the age of retirement was 60 years, they were kept pending deliberately till the superannuation age was reduced to 58 years in order to deprive the benefit of two years salary to them. In some cases, the applications were accepted at a great speed and were relieved just before passing of resolution whereby the age of retirement was reduced. Thereby a discriminatory approach was adopted by the respondent in an arbitrary manner to deny the benefit of two years salary to the petitioners while extending the benefit to another set of employees. It is further submitted that if the applications of the petitioners were also accepted before 30.11.2000, the petitioners would have got the benefit of two years salary which would work out to more than nearly Rs.2,00,000/-. There are no valid reasons for keeping the applications of the petitioners pending for nearly 8 to 9 months while accepting the applications of other set of employees, who are also similarly situated. As the terminal benefits of the petitioners are settled between May and July, 2001, there is no delay in filing the present writ petition. Hence, the present writ petition. The respondent while denying the averments of the petitioners has filed counter, inter alia, submitted that under the voluntary retirement scheme several employees of various categories have applied on various dates including the petitioners. The respondent has to examine all the applications with reference to their duties and responsibilities and work load entrusted to them. The respondent has to make alternative efforts to carryout day to day work without any hindrance, in case to consider the request of the employees. The respondent board being a labour oriented organisation, should take all precautionary steps to carry out the work while accepting their request. Hence, the respondent cannot simply accept the request of the petitioners as soon as they apply. In fact, there was no time limit in the rules for accepting the voluntary retirement scheme and it is for the management to decide whether the application should be accepted or not. After taking all the factors into consideration, the respondent has accepted the request of certain employees in certain categories on various dates that will depends on facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent has adopted a discriminatory approach towards the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The main grievance of the petitioners is that as and when they have opted for voluntary retirement scheme, the age of superannuation was 60 years and after kept pending their applications about 8 to 9 months their option was considered favourably and by that time the age of superannuation was reduced to 58 years. If their applications would have considered prior to a decision taken to reduce the age of superannuation, they would have got the benefit of two years and they would have got more monetary benefit. Therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of two years. For the above grievance the respondent in addition to the above counter averments it is categorically submitted that prior to 28.05.1998 the retirement age of employees was 58 years and however, the Government of India vide letter dated 28.05.1998 directed the respondent board to raise the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before the Board and in its meeting held on 28.05.1998 approved the said proposal by majority of members vide its resolution No.22/98, dated 28.05.1998. Again the Government of India vide letter dated 10.05.2000 and 04.09.2000 directed that the proposal with regard to bring back the retirement age of employees from 60 years to 58 years may be examined and suitable proposals may be sent for approval. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before the Board by circulation on 26.09.2000 and the Board after having agreed by majority of the members resolved vide circular resolution No.13/2000, dated 26.09.2000 to bring back the retirement age of employees with effect from 30.11.2000. In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioners without challenging the circular Board Resolution No.13/2000, dated 26.09.2000, to bring back the retirement age of employees of the respondent with effect from 30.11.2000, sought a direction as stated hereinabove. As the Board Resolution No.13/2000, dated 26.09.2000 was not challenged and straightaway kept pending the applications of the petitioners cannot be held as arbitrary. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as the Board Resolution No.13/2000, dated 26.09.2000 was not challenged this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 01.12.2010 LSK