Views and opinions on the demand to fix 33 years as the maximum length of service by the NSF has been regularly appearing in local dailies after the government enhanced the superannuation age. The stage for final showdown has been set.
I feel that the principle stand of the NSF (33 years as maximum length of service) deserved appreciation and admiration for the wisdom and impartial agreement between the then Ministry and NSF leaders in 1991 to superannuate the government employees on attaining 57 years of age or 33 years in service, whichever is earlier. Nonetheless, the government failed to defend its decision which led to regrettably, quashing of Service length by Court in 1992. At that point of time, had the Respondent, the government of Nagaland, defend its decision, then the Court might have upheld the Ordinance.
The demand for fixing the 33 years as maximum service length by NSF has resurfaced few years back and the proposal to fix 35 years as maximum length of service is in the offing. However, the chances of putting it into reality seem to be fragile.
If explanation is sought from the government on the decision of enhancing superannuation age from 57 years to 60 years, the good reasons and answers of the government would presumably, because of the increased average human longevity in India, the better health and medical facilities available, the improved standard of living, the usefulness in service of experienced employees, etc. etc.
Conversely, the government might wake up if justification for fixing the service length at 35 years is demanded. It will be intriguing to watch the outcome.
I say that 33 years as maximum length of service was justified and Court might have upheld the decision because the qualifying year for employees to get full pension benefit was 33 years in service. Therefore, if an employee is superannuated on completion of qualifying point to enjoy full pension benefits, it is in the public interest and natural justice. Hence the question of violation of Fundamental Rights or discriminatory or arbitrary does not arise. Thus the demand and stand point of NSF is undisputed.
On the other hand, the fixation of 35 or 36 years as the maximum length of service tantamount to violation of Constitution and discriminatory in nature. The proposal and bargaining to fix 35 years as maximum length of service holds no rational sense because the groups in concern who wants to fix 35 years as maximum service length cannot substantiate or justified their argument point. Therefore, the chances to escape the wrath of the Constitution are very slim in case the government goes ahead.
Let’s examine the main issue in focus in its greater details to reach a logical conclusion. Let there be skeleton material projection of the relevant Rule provisions, as well as, the established proposition of laws and the principles of jurisprudence.
The Appellate Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, under Civil Rule No. 364 of 1992 has struck down the criteria of superannuating the employees on the basis of stipulating the maximum length of service as being violative of Article 14, arbitrary, discriminatory and ultra-vires. No doubt, the constitutional power to regulate the terms and conditions of service in connection with the affairs of the State Service lies with the State government. However, the constitutional prohibitions and limitations should be observed to make good laws. The decision in question should always depend on a proper assessment of the factors or circumstances as no hard and fast rule can be laid down which are inherently irrational, illogical or tainted. The rights of the employees to continue in employment, which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, could not have been taken away except in accordance with law.
The Supreme Court has observed in M/s. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Naraian v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. that any arbitrary or unreasonable action or provision made by the State cannot be upheld. “Legislation, which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right, cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness, and unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedoms and rights guaranteed under the Constitution, it must be held to be wanting in reasonableness.”
Therefore, I doubt the validity and legality as to whether the proposed bill stipulating the maximum years of service can stand the scrutiny of the Constitution? It disturbs me to see that most of the young upcoming friends are forgetting our rich cultural and traditional values. We Nagas believe that the presence of more elderly persons in our society is a blessing and considers them as assets to our society. Elders at the age of late fifties and mid sixties are considered to be at its zenith in terms of maturity, wisdom, courage, sound judgment and mentally strong to shoulder any responsibilities. To the contrary, most of young Naga friends have forgotten to respect elders. The most common remark, “Let oldies go out and pave a way for young and more qualified persons to take their place”.
For instance, Airplane companies used to recruit only young Ladies as Air Hostesses for following reasons; they have to deal with passengers of various temperaments; young and attractive air hostess is able to cope with difficult or awkward situations more competently and more easily than an older person with less personal prepossession. They entertain the passengers by their sweet smiles and pleasant behaviour and look after the passengers better which cannot be done by women of older age. Etc.
Here I fail to see how a young and attractive AH would be able to cope with difficult or awkward situations more effectively than others. It is purely based on artificial understanding of the qualities of the woman because smartness or beauty cannot be the only hallmark of competency. It is idle to contend that young women with pleasing manners should be employed so as to act as show pieces in order to cater to the varied tastes of the passengers when in fact older women with greater experience and goodwill can look after the comforts of the passengers much better than a young woman can.
CUSAYI LOHE
Frm. Speaker NSF
