Retirement age row: HC dismisses pleas

Retirement age row: HC dismisses pleas

SagarKumar.Mutha@timesgroup.com

Hyderabad: 06.11.2021

Stating that promises made by chief ministers and governors do not become law of the land till they are officially converted into laws, the Telangana high court on Friday dismissed a batch of writ petitions that questioned the fixation of March 30, 2021, as cut-off date for implementing the GO that enhanced the retirement age from 58 to 61 in the state.

A bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice A Rajasheker Reddy pronounced its judgment to this effect after hearing elaborately the contentions raised by state government employees who retired a few days or weeks before the cut-off date.

They contended that they were hopeful of reaping the benefits of this ‘enhancement’ because the chief minister had assured employees in various public meetings in the run-up to the December 2018 assembly elections followed by an assurance by the state governor in her Republic Day speech on January 26, 2021. Moreover, they said, the first Pay Revision Commission of the state submitted its report on December 31, 2020, duly recommending the enhancement of the age of superannuation for those who were serving the state.

At least, the petitioners argued, that this report date should have been taken as the cut-off date. Even the bill passed by the assembly — Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2021 — for the purpose did not prescribe any timeframe from which it would come into operation, they said.

But the state issued an order (GO No. 45 dated March 30, 2021), fixing this date as the cut-off date for availing the enhanced age benefit, the petitioners said and contended that this date had no relevance to the events that shaped the decision like the PRC report or the CM’s assurance made as early as December 2018. They urged the court to declare the Act and the GO illegal.

The bench, however, said the dates of assurances or recommendations have no relevance. “It is the date fixed by the state after amending the Act through the legislature that is relevant,” the bench said, while refusing to interfere in the decision of the state.