Employees Have No Right To Choose Retirement Age, Says Supreme Court

Can an employee ask for an extension of the retirement age? Well, though the employee can ask for it, it is not the employee’s right to choose retirement age, the Supreme Court has said in a recent judgment.

The Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and KV Viswanathan held that “an employee has no fundamental right as regards the age at which he would retire”.

The court was hearing a case where the appellant was forced to retire at the age of 58. The appellant had joined the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board on March 13, 1985, as an electrician on a disability quota (60 per cent permanent disability).

Based on the appellant’s age, his superannuation was September 18, 2018. However, due to the conditions then, he was allowed to continue his service till the last day of the month (September 30, 2018).

Notably, on March 29, 2013, the department had issued an office memorandum (OM) and increased the retirement age of visually-impaired employees from 58 to 60 years. However, this OM was withdrawn on November 4, 2019, by the state government, and the retirement age for all was again set at 58 again.

The appellant retired before the withdrawal of the OM and thus filed an appeal for extending his retirement by two years to 60 years of age.

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel argued that denial of benefit to a person suffering from specified disabilities other than visual impairment is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 tells about the ‘equality before law’ for all. It says, “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

The counsel argued that the locomotor disability is a specified disability and the appellant had claimed for extension of his service well before the respective OM was withdrawn. Therefore, the OM should be made applicable for the appellant to ensure no discrimination between different types of disabilities.

The State counsel argued that the OM specifically conferred retirement age benefits to the visually-impaired and thus the applicant was not eligible for extension.

Court’s Observation

After hearing the argument and considering previous judgments in this regard, the court noted, “If the benefit of extension of retirement age is available to visually-impaired category, the same ought to be available to other categories of disabilities specified in the 1995 Act as reiterated in the 2016 Act.”

The court said, “In our view, on the date when the OM dated 04.11.2019 was issued, no right vested in the appellant to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the appellant is not entitled to continue in service beyond 04.11.2019 i.e., the date on which the OM dated 29.03.2013 was withdrawn.”

It said, however, “persons suffering from other specified disabilities could not have been denied the benefit of the OM dated 29.03.2013. Wwe are of the view that till the date the said OM was operative, the appellant was entitled to its benefit as, admittedly, he fell in the category of employee suffering from such disabilities as are specified in the 1995 Act and the 2016 Act.”

The Judgment

The court allowed the partial appeal and ordered, “The appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of continuance in service until 04.11.2019. In consequence, he shall be entitled to full wages from 01.10.2018 to 04.11.2019, with all consequential benefits that may impact his pension.”