Read Time: 08 minutes

The Telangana High Court on Friday dismissed a bunch of petitions that sought retrospective implementation of State Government’s decision taken on March 30, 2021  that enhanced the retirement age for government jobs from 58 or 60 years to 61 years.

The petitioners had contended that at the time of elections in 2018, State’s ruling party had promised them for the same for which a report by the First Pay Revision Commission of Telangana State was also submitted to the Government on December 31, 2020, therefore, the enforcement of such a law from March 30, 2021 was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 20 of the Constitution of India.

Rejecting petitioners’ this contention, the bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy said,

“The assurance given by some Ruling Party or by the Chief Minister or even by His Excellency the Governor does not become the law of the land."

Court added that it is the domain of the Legislature only to enact an Act or to amend an Act. 

The Telangana Government, through a Government Order (G.O.) issued on March 30, 2021, appointed the same date as the date on which the Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2021 would come into force enhancing the age of superannuation for all State Government employees.

Challenging this G.O., petitioners’ contention was that in the mother Bill of the Amendment Act, there was no stipulation in respect of date of enforcement, therefore, the employees superannuated prior to March 30, 2021 had been discriminated.

They had contended that once a promise had been made by the State Government for enhancing the age of superannuation in the year 2018 at the time of Assembly Elections, the State Government could not deny the benefit to the petitioners.

Therefore, they had alleged that the fixation of cut-off date as March 30, 2021 was bad, illegal and opposed to law in the light of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Court however rejected petitioners’ these arguments citing Apex Court's ruling in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. B.D.Singhal (2021) on the issue of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectations.

In New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) case, the State of Uttar Pradesh had acceded to Authority’s proposal for enhancement of age of superannuation of its employees from 58 years to 60 years prospectively, which got set aside by the Allahabad High Court.

Exercising its power of judicial review, the Allahabad High Court had directed that retrospective effect (implementation of the rule from a prior date) would be given to the concerned Government Order.

However, later on, the Apex Court overturned Allahabad high court’s decision stating, “Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to challenge the action of NOIDA."

Apex Court had added, “Though NOIDA sought the approval of the State government for the enhancement with ‘immediate effect’, it never intended or portrayed to have intended to give retrospective effect to the prospectively applicable Government order. The representation of NOIDA could not have given rise to a legitimate expectation since it was a mere recommendation which was subject to the approval of the State Government.”

In light of Supreme Court’s these observations, the Telangana High Court in the present matter concluded that the G.O. which was challenged by the petitioners did not warrant any interference.

Accordingly, observing as above stated, court dismissed the petition bunch without any order to cost.

Notably, the Delhi High Court also had stayed the implementation of a single judge order which had directed the Government of NCT Delhi to take a decision as to the implementation of the statements made by Delhi Chief Minister Mr. Arvind Kejriwal in a press conference.