Retirement age rollback upheld where valid quorum, public interest policy, and rational classification supported the decision

A challenge to the reduction of retirement age from 60 to 58 failed because the Board quorum was assessed by the total strength of the Board, not by vacant sanctioned posts; with two directors present out of six, the resolution was validly adopted. The Court also upheld the Government memorandum permitting exemption from the earlier enhancement of retirement age, treating it as a policy decision taken in public interest and to preserve the undertaking's commercial viability. On the available material, the rollback was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16, and the plea of legitimate expectation was not entertained because it was not specifically pleaded.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the resolution reducing the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years was invalid for want of quorum and valid Board action; (ii) whether the Government memorandum permitting exemption from the earlier enhancement of retirement age and the consequential rollback were unconstitutional or arbitrary under Articles 14 and 16.

Issue (i): whether the resolution reducing the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years was invalid for want of quorum and valid Board action.

Analysis: The applicable quorum requirement was to be judged by the total strength of the Board, not by the vacant sanctioned strength. Since two directors were present and the total strength was six, the statutory and contractual quorum requirement was satisfied. The Court also accepted that the resolution had supporting concurrence from other directors and that the challenge to Board competence was not made out.

Conclusion: The resolution was adopted by a validly constituted Board and was not invalid for want of quorum.

Issue (ii): whether the Government memorandum permitting exemption from the earlier enhancement of retirement age and the consequential rollback were unconstitutional or arbitrary under Articles 14 and 16.

Analysis: The Court held that the Government's decision to permit exemption was a policy measure taken in the larger public interest and in response to the commercial requirements of the undertaking. It further held that the exemption power was not void merely because no detailed guideline was shown, since the decision was supported by materials showing declining business and financial concerns. The Court also found that the undertaking stood on a distinct footing, so a differential treatment based on its economic viability did not amount to hostile discrimination. The plea of legitimate expectation was not entertained as it had not been specifically pleaded.

Conclusion: The memorandum and the resulting rollback were not unconstitutional, arbitrary, or discriminatory.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rollback of retirement age failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A policy-based exemption and consequent classification will not be struck down under Article 14 if it is supported by relevant material, is rationally connected to the object of preserving the undertaking's viability, and is not shown to be arbitrary or lacking bona fide basis.

---