IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 2464 of 2008() --------------------- {IN WPC.32514/2008 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. C.T.ANTONY, S/O.LATE C.A.THOMA, AGED 57 YEARS, CHITTATUKARA HOUSE, ALUVA P.O. PIN 683 101. 2. K.E.MOHANAN, S/O.LATE EASWARA PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS, THIRUVATHIRA HOUSE, KOLLAN PADI, IRUMBANAM P.O., THRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682 309. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & ADMINISTRATIVE/DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD., REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. AMBALAMUGAL. WA.No. 2464 of 2008 :: 2 :: 4. CHIEF PERSONAL & ADMINISTRATION MANAGER, HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. COCHIN UNIT, AMBALAMUGAL. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN FOR R2 TO R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.A.No.2464 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 23th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J. The appellants herein are the appellants in the writ petition, who wanted to increase the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years. 2. The appellants were in employment of Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited, a public sector enterprise, having two units apart from the Head Office at Mumbai. The appellants are working at Ambalamugal in Kerala State. Ext.P1 is the guidelines, which shows that Government had decided to increase the age of retirement Board level and below Board level employees in certain public sector undertakings, from 58 to 60 years. But, thereafter, it was decided to give up the proposal for enhancement of age, except in profit making companies. The 2nd respondent company was one of the loss making companies and therefore, it was referred to the BIFR. Therefore, the 2nd respondent company cannot enhance the retirement age of its employees. The BIFR has passed orders W.A.NO.2464/08 :: 2 :: releasing the company from its purview of consideration. In February, 2008, the following decisions were taken: “In the meantime, several sick CPSEs have started making profit and these CPSEs have requested for enhancement of age of retirement of its employees from 58 to 60 years. The matter has further been reviewed by the Government and it has now been decided that the Minister-in Charge of the administrative Ministry/Department concerned is empowered to approve the proposals of CPSEs to enhance the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years, provided that -- (a) The CPSE concerned should as per its audited annual accounts have made net profits for the last 3 years continuously and should have a positive net worth during the last three years. (b) The CPSE has not availed any budgetary support during the last 3 years and no budgetary support will be availed by the CPSE in future. (c) The proposals are approved by the Board of Directors of the CPSE concerned and have the concurrence of Financial Advisor of the concerned administrative Ministry/ Department.” 3. That shows that 3 years accounts have to be looked into and thereafter the Board can decide the enhancement of the age to 60. Admittedly, 6 central Public Sector undertakings W.A.NO.2464/08 :: 3 :: have decided to increase the age of its employees. Even after the decision, the Government has to consider the same. Since the Board has not recommended enhancement of the age of employees of the 2nd respondent, this court cannot declare that the appellants are entitled to retire only at the age of 60 years. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the company that the company is on loss even now. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the unit at Ambalamugal is making profit and it should be separately treated. Whether in one unit alone, can retirement age be increased, is to be decided by the Board. According to the counsel for the 2nd respondent company, this unit is running at loss. 4. It is contended by the appellants that the retirement age of Board level employees of the company has been enhanced, but the retirement age of the below Board level employees of the company has not been enhanced. It is clarified by the counsel for the company that only 4 officers, i.e. Chairman and Managing Director, Director (Marketing) Director (Finance) and Director W.A.NO.2464/08 :: 4 :: Operation & Finance are permitted to continue till they attain the age of 60 years. They are approved by the Central Government but other members of the company including Chief Executive General Managers etc. are to retire at the age of 58 years, as the retirement in the company was fixed at 58 years. This cannot be termed as violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the above circumstances, we cannot issue a writ of mandamus. 5. However, the appellants will be free to file a representation to the company Board for a favourable consideration. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- (J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge