Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 12 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: S. Sridharan, former Labour Welfare Officer (appointed 05‑Jul‑1991) and later AGM (Personnel & Administration) of Burn Standard Company Limited (BSCL).
  • Respondents: SAIL Refractory Company Ltd. (SRCL) represented by its Chief Operating Officer and Deputy General Manager (Personnel & Administration).
  • Background: BSCL became a sick company under SICA and was taken over by Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) through a wholly‑owned subsidiary, SRCL, incorporated under Section 293(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956. SRCL assumed all assets, liabilities and employees of BSCL as per Office Memorandum dated 17‑Nov‑2011, making the petitioner an employee of SRCL.
  • Retirement Age Policy: The Department of Public Enterprise issued an Office Memorandum on 20‑Apr‑2007 raising retirement age for non‑executive cadre to 60 years, effective 06‑Mar‑2015. Executives remained at 58 years. SRCL’s Board, on 07‑Sep‑2017, resolved to raise the retirement age for executives from 58 to 60 years prospectively from 01‑Sep‑2017.
  • Petitioner’s Claim: Despite the board resolution, SRCL issued a notice on 01‑Apr‑2019 stating the petitioner would superannuate on 30‑Jun‑2019, when he would be 58 years old. The petitioner submitted a representation on 15‑Apr‑2019 invoking the 07‑Sep‑2017 resolution and seeking continuation of service until 60 years.
  • Respondents’ Reply (24‑Apr‑2019): Stated the 07‑Sep‑2017 resolution required approval from the promoter (SAIL) and was therefore pending; the resolution could not be implemented without such approval.
  • Subsequent Board Action: On 12‑Mar‑2018, SRCL’s Board modified the 07‑Sep‑2017 resolution, making the retirement‑age increase conditional upon approval by SAIL’s board and the Ministry of Steel, Government of India.
  • Precedent: The Court’s earlier order in W.P. No.8663 of 2020 (dated 06‑Dec‑2024) held that the 07‑Sep‑2017 resolution, after being modified on 12‑Mar‑2018, was “null and void” for similar claims.
  • Counsel’s Duty: The Court noted that the petitioner’s counsel, who had previously appeared in W.P. No.8663/2020, failed to inform the Court that the issue had already been decided, breaching the duty of an advocate as outlined in several Supreme Court judgments.

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit, holding that the conditional 07‑Sep‑2017 resolution could not be relied upon and that the petitioner was lawfully retired at 58 years.
  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Court Order, Retirement Age, Public Sector Employment