Case: Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Limited Officers Association & Another Vs. Maharashtra Electrosmelt Limited (Subsidiary of Steel Authority of India Limited)

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging notice dated 29.06.1994 received by him on 07.07.1994, retiring him at the age of 58 years rather than 60 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed by order dated 06.10.1976 as Operator-B and the said order provided for service conditions as per Model Standing Orders and/or Companys Certified Standing Orders. Maharashtra Electorsmelt Limited was a new company and did not have any Certified Standing Orders. The counsel for the petitioner then submitted that Model Standing Order provides for retirement age as 60 years, therefore, the petitioner was obviously entitled to retirement at 60 years and not 58 years since at the inception, he entered into service as per that condition or agreement by the employer. The petitioner then submitted that he was promoted while in employment and ultimately reached up to the post of Senior Foreman on 05.09.1991. However, when he was to attain the age of 58 years, he received a notice on 07.07.1994, asking him to retire at the age of 58 years, though he was allowed to continue to work till August-1994. According to the petitioner, the defence of the employer that subsequent service rules framed in the year 1983 for officers would govern the case of the petitioner, is illegal because at the inception itself, the petitioner was governed by the retirement age as per Model Standing Orders in the absence of any Companys Certified Standing Orders. He, therefore, prayed for consequential benefits as the petitioner has retired from service and was not allowed to work up to the age of 60 years.2. Per contra, Mr. Mehadia, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner received two promotions during his service career and became officer and thus came in the executive or officers cadre. When he was appointed as Operator-B, obviously he was not in the cadre of officer or executive. But then, the petitioner accepted all the benefits, in accordance with the Rules of 1983. The employees, offices, including the petitioner, who were given promotions by the company and were accepted by them, were not entitled to claim anything more than provided by Rules, 1983, which provided for the age of retirement for the officers at the age of 58 years. Mr. Mehadia, then contended that the petitioner is estopped from claiming such reliefs for the simple reason that he accepted all the benefits under the Rules made applicable with effect from 01.01.1983, which were more beneficial to the employees or officers like the petitioner. Therefore, he cannot be allowed to turn around and claim the relief under the Model Standing Order in the matter of age of retirement. Mr. Mehadia, therefore, submitted that the petitioner, having fallen in the cadre of executive or officer, is obviously governed by the age meant for them as per the Rules, of 1983, which was 58 years. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.3. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties for quite some time. We have perused the entire petition and record of the petition. We have perused Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Ltd. Employees Service Rules shown to us by learned counsel for rival parties. The said rules provide for the age of superannuation as 58 years. The question is; in the case of the petitioner whether his age of retirement would be governed by the Rules of 1983 or by his appointment order. When the petitioner first entered the service, the employer itself gave an order of appointment on 06.10.1976 and item No.7 thereof provides that he shall be governed by the Model Standing Orders and/or the Companys Certified Standing Orders.4. It is an admitted position that when the Company had started functioning at Chandrapur, there were neither any service rules nor Certified Standing Orders, obviously because a new company was brought into existence. Since there were no service conditions of the employees including the petitioner, the appointment order dated 06.10.1976 was obviously given, keeping in view the existing law the then namely; Model Standing Order or Certified Standing Order of the Company. But then the company did not have Certified Standing Order at that time and, therefore, obviously the field was occupied by the Model Standing Order. Admittedly, the Model Standing Order provides for age of retirement as 60 years. Therefore, the petitioner was clearly governed by the Model Standing Order, in accordance with the appointment order issued by the respondent-company itself and could not be allowed to turn back and rely upon the Rules of 1983, providing for the age of retirement as age of 58 years. It cannot be forgotten that the petitioner entered the service with full knowledge that his age of retirement would be 60 years. Therefore, merely because Rules of 1983 framed thereafter i.e. after 7 years, service condition of the petitioner about age of retirement can, in no case, be changed unilaterally. The petitioner never agreed to have change of his age of retirement to 58 years. The contention that the petitioner took promotions as per the Service Rules, 1983, does not at all impress us. Whether the petitioner took the benefits of Rules of 1983 has no relevance with the fixation of age of retirement, in accordance with Model Standing Order, which was 60 years. There cannot be estoppel against the law namely; the age of retirement provided by Model Standing Order is 60 years, even assuming that the petitioner took service benefits under Rules of 1983. It is well settled legal position that the employee is entitled to benefits of the said provision which is more beneficial to him.5. Be that as it may, we find that the petitioner was entitled to the age of superannuation as 60 years and not 58 years. In addition, we quote item 2 from Chapter I of the Service Rules, which reads thus:"2. Commencement & Scope:These rules shall come into force on and from 1.1.1983 and will apply to all monthly rated employees of the Company at the Head Office, Regional offices and at the factory except to those employees to whom the standing orders under the provisions of the B.I.R. Act or the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 as the case may be, apply."6. The above rule itself shows that Model Standing Order framed under the Indian Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, would have application in the instant case of the petitioner as stated Clause 7 of the appointment order.7. The net result of the above discussion is that the petition must succeed.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]4. It is an admitted position that when the Company had started functioning at Chandrapur, there were neither any service rules nor Certified Standing Orders, obviously because a new company was brought into existence. Since there were no service conditions of the employees including the petitioner, the appointment order dated 06.10.1976 was obviously given, keeping in view the existing law the then namely; Model Standing Order or Certified Standing Order of the Company. But then the company did not have Certified Standing Order at that time and, therefore, obviously the field was occupied by the Model Standing Order. Admittedly, the Model Standing Order provides for age of retirement as 60 years. Therefore, the petitioner was clearly governed by the Model Standing Order, in accordance with the appointment order issued by theitself and could not be allowed to turn back and rely upon the Rules of 1983, providing for the age of retirement as age of 58 years. It cannot be forgotten that the petitioner entered the service with full knowledge that his age of retirement would be 60 years. Therefore, merely because Rules of 1983 framed thereafter i.e. after 7 years, service condition of the petitioner about age of retirement can, in no case, be changed unilaterally. The petitioner never agreed to have change of his age of retirement to 58 years. The contention that the petitioner took promotions as per the Service Rules, 1983, does not at all impress us. Whether the petitioner took the benefits of Rules of 1983 has no relevance with the fixation of age of retirement, in accordance with Model Standing Order, which was 60 years. There cannot be estoppel against the law namely; the age of retirement provided by Model Standing Order is 60 years, even assuming that the petitioner took service benefits under Rules of 1983. It is well settled legal position that the employee is entitled to benefits of the said provision which is more beneficial to him.