Service-based retirement policy upheld as rational and constitutional under equality guarantees in public employment

Retirement from public employment may validly be regulated by completed years of service and not only by age, because Article 309 permits service conditions to be fixed by law and such a policy is sustainable if it meets constitutional tests. Applying the presumption of constitutionality and earlier authority upholding service-based retirement, the Supreme Court found the provision requiring retirement on completion of 35 years of service or on attaining 60 years, whichever is earlier, to have a rational basis. The State's employment policy, including the objective of creating opportunities for educated unemployed youth, sufficiently supported the classification. The constitutional challenge failed, and the provision was held not arbitrary, irrational, or violative of Articles 14 and 16.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provision prescribing retirement from public employment on completion of 35 years of service or on attaining the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier, is arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The Court held that there is no inflexible constitutional rule that retirement from public employment can be regulated only by reference to age. Article 309 permits the Legislature to regulate service conditions, and a retirement policy framed by law is valid if it satisfies constitutional tests. Relying on the principles governing retirement policy and the presumption of constitutionality, the Court held that the impugned provision was consistent with earlier authority upholding retirement based on completed years of service. The provision was found to be supported by the State's employment policy and by the objective of creating opportunities for educated unemployed youth in Nagaland, and the material on record was held sufficient to show a rational basis for the classification.

Conclusion: The challenge failed. The provision was held not to be arbitrary or irrational and not violative of Articles 14 and 16.

---