Dimapur, December 2 (MExN): The government of Nagaland ‘assuring’ to refer the contentious issue of superannuation to the court is taken note of by the Educated Unemployed Union of Nagaland, who says the order of compulsory retirement is not a “punishment” and “implies no stigma. “The government could have reduced or enhanced the retirement age and upper age limit for service entry with out seeking a review of the high court decision. But it has a problem to fix the maximum length of state service based on enhancement of retirement age and sought a review of high court judgment, rather astonishing to get the impression that it is not willing to take decision in the public interest” wondered the union in a note received here.
On one hand the state government assured in principle to ‘fix’ the maximum length of service of state government employees, the union explained, but on the other, it is filing a review of the judgment and order passed by the Guwahati High Court after a gap of 16 years.
“As the review of the judgment has to be done by the same judge who passed it and must have been retired by now, so, it is simply impossible. The judgment passed by the high court that the government cannot have two criteria for determining the age of superannuation of its employees fixing both the upper age limit and the length of service, was based on the reduction of retirement age from 60 to 57 years of age” the union contented.
But now, the union said, the demand for ‘fixing’ the maximum length of state service is based on enhancement of retirement age from 57 to 60 years. “So the two opposite actions are minus and plus years of retirement age” the union observed. The union questioned the stated government if it expects that the high court would pass the same verdict again. “Or will some government servants buy justice with money power? Government does not need to play time pass or double standard game for the reason best known to it, pertaining to superannuation and related matter at the expense of the younger generation” the EUUN said.
The union also cited Article 309 of the Indian Constitution of India that the legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the union or a state. “Article 310 states that every person who is member of a civil service of a state or holds any civil post under a state holds office during the pleasure of the governor of a state.
The high court or the administrative tribunal cannot issue a mandate to the state government to make rules under the article 309 of the constitution. (Malikarjun Rao vs state of Andhra Pradesh 1990)” it stated. The EUUN said the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and implies no stigma or any suggestion of misbehavior.
“The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that is in the public interest to retire a government servant, compulsorily (The supreme court held in Baikunda Nath Das vs Chief District Medical Officer 1992)”.
It means, the EUUN said, the state government as an employer has the authority to legislate on the state service including the length of service and the government servants will serve as long as the state government requires their services and the court cannot override the decision of the state government which is formed in the public interest.
“The government must judiciously utilize this power to legislate the maximum length of state service without affecting the existing upper age limit for entry into service and retirement age in the best interest of the 55000 educated unemployed, lakhs of growing students and lakhs of government servants aspiring for promotion” the union added.
