Case: Navnit Lal Manilal Bhat Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

2. The appellant entered the service of the B.B. and C. I. Railway onas a probationary Assistant Booking Clerk. Onthis Railway was taken over by the Central Government. At that time the appellant executed a service agreement which, among other things, preserved for him the leave privileges he was entitled to while serving under the Company. The age of retirement under the Company was 55 years as indeed it was for Government servants also. This age of retirement was made a specific clause of the agreement. Onthe age of retirement of all Railway servants, without any distinction, was raised to 58. Onthe Railway Board issued a circular on the question of application of age of retirement under Rule 2046 of the Railway Establishment Code. On the basis of this circular the appellant was asked to retire on attaining the age of 55, as mentioned earlier. Before the High Court this circular ofwas urged as being a Rule made by the President and accepting this contention the High Court dismissed the appellants writ petition.

Reasoning:
4. The circular of the Railway Board datedpicked out one section of the Railway employees which were governed by Rule 2046 of the Railway Establishment Code, as amended onand subjected them to hostile treatment. As observed in the decision referred to above, while there might be a reasonable classification of Railway servants asemployees and others, there is no nexus or relation between the classification and the object sought to be achieved. It was sought to be argued in this case that the leave privileges ofemployees which were protected when those railway companies were taken over by the Government gave them an advantage of availing themselves of their leave after retirement, which privilege was not available to regular Government employees of Railways and this was a basis for the distinction. But then betweenwhen persons like the appellant became Government servants, tillwhen the Rule 2046 of the Railway Establishment Code was amended, theemployees had the same advantage over the other employees of the Railways. That situation did not change onIt did not, therefore, mean that if the benefit of the extended age of superannuation were given toemployees they would get an advantage which other employees did not get. We have no doubt that if the decision of this Court had been rendered when the Gujarat High Court disposed of this writ petition the petitioner would have succeeded before that Court. We do not want to add to what has been discussed elaborately in that decision.