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

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 asand 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.

Reasoning: 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.