- Case
- RAJENDRA PAWAR AND ORS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 13-03-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Societies Registration Act.
Facts: Several employees of the Yeshwantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration (YASHADA) filed writ petitions challenging the reduction of their retirement age from 60 to 58 years by a 2010 amendment to the service rules. The petitioners argued that this change violated their service conditions, as they were appointed under rules that stipulated a retirement age of 60, particularly for teaching posts. YASHADA contended that the amendment was valid and applied to all employees, irrespective of their initial conditions of service.
Procedural Posture: The case was heard by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, consolidating multiple writ petitions (WP No. 8668 of 2019, WP No. 7430 of 2021, WP No. 5608 of 2015, and WP No. 2337 of 2025) filed by the affected employees. The court was tasked with determining the legality and validity of the revised YASHADA Service Rule No. 3.01.
Issue: Can an employer retrospectively alter the fixed age of retirement of employees to their detriment, specifically reducing it from 60 to 58 years, when the employees were initially appointed under service conditions specifying a retirement age of 60 years? Does the amended rule violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
Holding: The High Court partly allowed the writ petitions, ruling that the amended Rule 3.01 of the 2010 Rules would operate prospectively. The reduced retirement age of 58 years would only apply to employees appointed after the introduction of the amended rule. Those prematurely retired at 58, who filed petitions in reasonable time, were entitled to compensation.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that altering the service conditions to the detriment of employees already in service is generally impermissible. While the employer has the power to modify service rules, such modifications cannot retrospectively take away vested or accrued rights. The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Chairman, Railway Board and others vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and others, which held that retrospective amendments affecting vested rights are invalid. The court distinguished K. Nagraj & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, noting that in the present case, the retirement age was fixed at 60 years at the time of the petitioners' appointment, and the subsequent reduction was detrimental. The court also considered the principle that service conditions applicable to employees at the time of appointment cannot be altered to their prejudice. The court held that the petitioners who were superannuated prematurely were entitled to compensation for involuntary unemployment.
