Writ Petition No. 17896 of 2014 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6830 WP No. 17896 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.17896 OF 2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. N.T. NARASE GOWDA, S/O. N. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS MASTER CRAFTSMAN, HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, BANGALORE-560 013. 2. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA N.R., S/O N.S. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERVISOR, HMT MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED, BANGALORE-560 013. (BY SRI. P.N. NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPTD. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES & PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, DEPT. OF HEAVY INDUSTRY, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 011. …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6830 WP No. 17896 of 2014 2. HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, HMT BHAVAN, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 032. 3. 4. JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (MFG. & DC) H.M.T. MACHINE TOOLS LTD., BANGALORE COMPLEX, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 013. JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (AYM & CS), H.M.T. MACHINE TOOLS LTD., BANGALORE COMPLEX, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 013. …RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. H. JAYAKARA SHETTY, CGC FOR R1; SRI. C.K. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED. 3.2.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, DATED. 14.3.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-C DATED. 3.2.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND DATED. 3.4.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE R-3 AND R-4 AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ORDERS DATED. 30.5.1998, 15.6.2011, 8.4.2013 AND 28.2.2014 AND THE AMENDMENT TO CONDUCT RULES OF THE HMT DATED. 6.6.2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-K,M,J,L AND P RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6830 WP No. 17896 of 2014 ORAL ORDER The petitioners, retired employees of respondent No.2- Hindustan Machine Tools Limited (for short ‘HMTL’) are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexures-A, C, E and H, communications dated 03.02.2014, 14.03.2014 and 03.04.2014, wherein date of retirement of the petitioners at 58 years is intimated; with a further prayer to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for extending the benefit of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years in terms of Government Order and amendment to conduct rules dated 06.06.2013 (Annexure-P). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the employees of respondent No.2-HMTL and they retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioners are before this Court praying to extend the benefit of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years in terms of amendment to the Standing Orders of the HMTL, which enhanced the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that HMTL in pursuance to the approval of the Government of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6830 WP No. 17896 of 2014 India, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Department of Heavy Industry, enhanced the age of superannuation in respect of the employees of HMTL from 58 years to 60 years with effect from 18.04.2013. In terms of the said amendment to the Standing Order, it is submitted that the petitioners were entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. He submits that retirement of the petitioners at the age of 58 years ignoring the amendment under Office Order No.07/13 dated 06.06.2013 (Annexure-P) is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned counsel would further submit that the amendment brought to the Standing Order by HMTL, which is a holding Company is applicable to all its subsidiary companies. 4. Learned counsel Sri. P.N. Nanja Reddy would invite attention of this Court to Annexure-R9 produced by the respondents along with additional statement to say that when age of retirement was reduced from 60 years to 58 years under Office Order No: 04/03 dated 07/4/2003, each Unit was mentioned, but under Annexure-P-Amendment, it is General Order and it would be applicable to all the Units of HMTL. Though there is a direction to other Units to carryout the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6830 WP No. 17896 of 2014 amendment, merely because amendment is not brought by the subsidiary companies, it cannot be said that the amendment to Standing Order under office order dated 06.06.2013 with the approval of Competent Authority under the Standing Orders Act would not be applicable to the petitioners. Thus, he prays for
Decision
allowing the writ petition and to direct the respondents to grant financial benefit by declaring that the petitioners were entitled to continue in service up to 60 years. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri. C.K.Subramanya, learned counsel for Sri. B.C.Prabhkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that amendment to the Standing Order is not general and he submits that it applies only to the employees of HMTL, a holding company and he specifically refers to last paragraph of the said Annexure-P and states that direction was issued to all other Units of HMTL to take action to amend the Standing Orders in order to give effect to age of superannuation. But as on the date of retirement of the petitioners at the age of 58 years, such amendment increasing retirement age to 60 years has not taken place. Hence, the petitioners would not be entitled for the benefit of Annexure-P. Further, learned counsel - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6830 WP No. 17896 of 2014 would submit that since the Standing Order relating to the petitioners was not amended increasing the retirement age to 60 years, the petitioners have no right to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. In terms of the Standing Order existing as on 30.04.2014, the petitioners were rightly retired at the age of 58 years. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that earlier the age of retirement of the employees of HMTL and its subsidiary companies was at the age of 60 years. But the same was reduced to 58 years on the direction of the Central Government and subsequently which was increased at the instance of the Central Government to 60 years insofar as HMTL employees are concerned. Further, learned counsel would submit that the Hindustan Machine Tools Limited is different company and HMT Machine Tools Limited is different company by referring to Annexure-R2, certificate of incorporation. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which would fall for consideration is as to “Whether the petitioners would be entitled to continue in service of HMTL up to the age of 60 years?" - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6830 WP No. 17896 of 2014 7. Answer to the above point would be in the 'Negative' for the following reasons: Admittedly, the petitioners who were working as Master Craftsman and Worker Supervisor respectively, retired from the services of respondent No.2-HMTL on attaining the age of 58 years on 30.04.2014 in terms of the existing Standing Order as on the said date. The contention of the petitioners is that Annexure-P-Amendment which was brought into force with the approval of the Competent Authority under the Standing Order Act dated 06.06.2013, ought to have continued them up to the age of 60 years. It is relevant to note last paragraph of Annexure-P, Office Order No.07/13 dated 06.06.2013, which reads as follows: “The concerned Units of HMT Limited shall initiate immediate action to amend the Standing Orders in order to give effect to above amendment of the age of superannuation, as per laid down procedure in this regard.” 8. The above makes it clear that the concerned Units of the HMTL shall initiate action to amend the Standing Order to enhance the age of superannuation. But in respect of HMTL, no such amendment to the Standing Order or to the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6830 WP No. 17896 of 2014 Disciplinary and Conduct Rules was brought in. The petitioners would be bound by the existing Standing Order or Service Rules. As on the date of the petitioners attaining the age of 58 years i.e., on 30.04.2014, retirement age in terms of Standing Order or Service Rules was 58 years. In the absence of amendment to the Standing Order of respondent No.2 in pursuance to Annexure-P, the petitioners would not get any right to continue up to the age of 60 years. Apparently in terms of Annexure-R2, Certified copy of Incorporation of HMTL i.e., respondent No.2 is an independent Company where the petitioners were employed. The petitioners have not placed on record any document or Standing Order to indicate that the age of retirement of the employees of HMTL was enhanced to 60 years as on the date of petitioners' retirement at the age of 58 years. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35