M.P. State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Dattatraya
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4482 of 1986 & 3110 of 1985.
Petitioner: M.P. State Road Transport Corpn.
Respondent: Dattatraya
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4482 of 1986 & 3110 of 1985.
Judges: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH & K.N. SINGH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 27, 1987
Head Note:
CIVIL SERVICE
Superannuation age – Employees of Madhya Pradesh State Road Corporation – Conflict of opinion of Madhya Pradesh High Court and Bombay High Court – It is open to the Corporation to fix the age of superannuation in accordance with law.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. There appears to be a conflict between the opinion expressed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the opinion of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench regarding the age of superannuation of certain employees of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. These appeals are filed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench only. No appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and also the fact that a large number of employees concerned have already retired, we feel that it is not necessary to deal with the questions raised in the appeals as it is open to the appellant-Corporation to fix the age of superannuation in accordance with law uniformly in respect of all. We, therefore, dispose of these two appeals without expressing any opinion on the correctness of the judgment of the High Court but reserving liberty to the appellant-Corporation to fix the age of superannuation in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs.
1. There appears to be a conflict between the opinion expressed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the opinion of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench regarding the age of superannuation of certain employees of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. These appeals are filed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench only. No appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and also the fact that a large number of employees concerned have already retired, we feel that it is not necessary to deal with the questions raised in the appeals as it is open to the appellant-Corporation to fix the age of superannuation in accordance with law uniformly in respect of all. We, therefore, dispose of these two appeals without expressing any opinion on the correctness of the judgment of the High Court but reserving liberty to the appellant-Corporation to fix the age of superannuation in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs.
