Assurance By Chief Minister, Ruling Party Or Even By The Governor Doesn't Become Law Of The Land: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has recently observed that the assurance given by some Ruling Party or by the Chief Minister or even by His Excellency the Governor does not become the law of the land.

The assertion came from the bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice A.Rajasheker Reddy while dismissing a clutch of petitions seeking retrospective implementation of the State Government's decision to enhance the retirement age for government jobs from 58 or 60 years to 61 years.

Background 

Essentially, the State Legislature passed the Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2021, under which the age of superannuation of public employees had been enhanced from 58 years to 61 years.

This particular act did not contain the date of enforcement of the act, however, through a Government Order, the State Government, on March 30, 2021, notified that the said Act shall be deemed to have come into force on March 30th, 2021.

This meant that the employees who were due to retire on March 30 or later, were entitled to the benefit of the Act passed by the state government. Challenging the Government order, some retired employees (prior to March 30) moved to the High Court.

The submissions of the petitioners

At the outset, the Petitioners argued that the employees who have superannuated prior to March 2021, had been discriminated against by the Government and therefore, they claimed that the Amending Act of 2021 and Government Order, are violative of Articles 14, 16, and 20 of the Constitution of India.

They also argued that keeping in view the Pay Revision Commission's Report, the Amending Act should have been made applicable with retrospective effect i.e., from 31.12.2020.

Significantly, the petitioners also contended that the ruling Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) Party had, in the year 2018, given an assurance at the time of elections for enhancing the age of superannuation of Telangana Government employees to 61 years and the matter was pending consideration.

The petitioners further stated that the Governor of Telangana too, in a Republic Day Speech given in 2021, had made a promise in respect of enhancement of retirement age.

Against this backdrop, raising the issue of promissory estoppel, the petitioner's submitted that once a promise has been made by the State Government for enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 61 years in the year 2018 at the time of Assembly Elections, the State Government cannot deny the benefit of enhancement in retirement age.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court observed that the fixation of cut-off date does not warrant any interference as fixation of cut-off date always leaves a large number of employees unsatisfied.

Further, noting that the petitioners have not been able to establish before this Court as to how it is discriminatory, arbitrary, or violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court observed thus:

"The assurance given by some Ruling Party or by the Chief Minister or even by His Excellency the Governor does not become the law of the land. It is the domain of the Legislature to enact an Act or to amend an Act and the same has rightly been done by the State Legislature by amending the Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 with the Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Act No.3 of 2021)."

Regarding the issue of promissory estoppel, the Court referred to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. B.D.Singhal LL 2021 SC 297, wherein the Top Court had held that the enhancement of superannuation age is a policy matter.

In this case, the Supreme Court had set aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which directed that retrospective effect from September 2002 should be given to the decision taken by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) in September 2012 to enhance the retirement age of its employees from 58 to 60.

Allowing an appeal filed by the NOIDA against the judgment, a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah had observed that the High Court trenched upon a domain of executive policy regarding retirement age.

"The infirmity in the judgment lies in the fact that the High Court has trenched upon the realm of policy making and has assumed to itself, jurisdiction over a matter which lies in the domain of the executive. Whether the age of superannuation should be increased and if so, the date from which this should be effected is a matter of policy into which the High Court ought not to have entered", the Bench had observed.

Read more about the case here: 'Enhancement Of Superannuation Age A Policy Matter' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad HC Direction On Retirement Age In NOIDA

With this, the Telangana High Court didn't find any reason to interfere with the Amending Act No.3 of 2021 and the Government Order vide G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 30.03.2021, and to direct the State to grant the benefit of the Amending Act and the Government Order with retrospective effect and therefore, the writ pleas were dismissed.

In July this year, the Delhi High Court had held that a promise or assurance given by the Chief Minister in a press conference amounts to an enforceable promise and that a CM is expected to exercise his authority to give effect to such a promise.

A single-judge bench comprising of Justice Pratibha M Singh had observed thus:

"The promise/assurance/representation given by the CM clearly amounts to an enforceable promise, the implementation of which ought to be considered by the Government. Good governance requires that promises made to citizens, by those who govern, are not broken, without valid and justifiable reasons."

However, the Delhi High Court's division bench had, later on, temporarily stayed this order.

Further, while upholding the detention of a man, accused of black marketing of Remdesivir injections amid the Covid-19 pandemic, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had, in July 2021, observed that the social media posts of a Chief Minister can't be equated with an administrative order/instruction.

A Division Bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Anil Verma had further held that it is not necessary that every social media post of a government functionary is seen/read out and followed in the administrative hierarchy.

Click Here To Read/Download Order