1                                                                                                                                   REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8229-8230 OF 2003

AVINASH CHAND & ANR. & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

CHAIRMAN MARKET COMMITTEE & ORS. & ETC. ..... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. These  appeals  by  way  of  special  leave  are  

directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of  

the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  dated  15th March,  

2010  whereby  the  writ  petition  challenging  the  

provision of a retirement age for auctioneers in the  

Market Committee, have been dismissed.  The facts are  

as under:-

2. The appellants, and several others who had filed  

writ  petitions  in  the  High  Court,  were  working  as  

auctioneers  on  commission  basis  in  the  Market  

Committee, Kaithal since the year 1963-64 as per Rule  

24(5)  of  the  Punjab  Agricultural  Produce  Markets  

General  Rules,  1962,  (hereinafter  for  short  'the  

Rules').  On  3rd November,  1992,  the  Chief  

Administrator,  Haryana  State  Agricultural  Board  

addressed a directive  to the Chairmen and Secretaries  

of the Market Committees reiterating a directive dated

2                                                                                                                                   REPORTABLE

26th August, 1982, that the auctioneers on commission  

basis should not be allowed to work beyond the age of  

60  years.   As  a  consequence  of  the  aforesaid  

instructions,  the  services  of  the  appellants  were  

terminated on 27th August, 2000 as they had crossed the  

age  of  60  years.   The  instructions  aforesaid  were  

accordingly,  challenged  before  the  High  Court.   On  

notice,  the  respondent  Marketing  Board  and  the  

concerned  Market  Committees  controverted  the  pleas  

raised in the writ petition.  It was pointed out that  

the appellants and others like them had been engaged on  

fixed rates on commission basis as per bye-law 28 of  

the Punjab Market Committee Bye-laws, 1963 and that the  

instructions had been issued in conformity with Rule  

24(5) ibidem.  The High Court, during the course of its  

judgment observed that Section 33(4)(ii) of the Punjab  

Agricultural  Produce  Markets  Act  1961,  which  was  

applicable to Haryana State as well provided that it  

was open to the Board to issue instructions in matters  

which were likely to adversely affect the interests of  

the  Committee  or  the  producers  or  dealers  or  any  

functionaries working in the notified area, and the  

instructions  were  thus  authorised  by  statute.   The  

Court also noted that in the arguments made on behalf  

of the appellants that the instructions of 1992 could

3                                                                                                                                   REPORTABLE

not be made retrospectively applicable to their case,  

it was pointed out that similar instruction had first  

been  issued  in  the  year  1982  (and  had  only  been  

reiterated in the year 1992) and that in any case the  

auctioneers were not employees of the Committees or of  

the Marketing Board. The Court accordingly held that  

the instructions issued by the  Chief Administrator  

laid down a policy and in the absence of a fixed tenure  

laid down by instructions or by Statute or Rules it was  

not open to the appellants to claim that they should be  

allowed to continue till they remained physically fit.  

The  High  Court,  accordingly,  dismissed  the  writ  

petition leading to this appeal.  Leave was granted in  

the year 2003 and the matter has come up today for  

final disposal.  We also notice that although liberty  

had been given on 6th October, 2003 to request for an  

early hearing and despite the fact that the matters are  

on the list, the counsel for the appellant has not  

appeared before us,  although we had waited for him for  

some time.  In the light of the fact that these matters  

are extremely old, we are not inclined to adjourn them  

any further.  

3. We  have  gone  through  the  judgment  of  the  

Division Bench of the High Court very carefully with  

the  assistance  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the

4                                                                                                                                   REPORTABLE

respondent.  Certain facts can be culled out from the  

judgment of the High Court:(1) that till the issuance  

of the instructions in 1982 as reiterated in 1992 there  

was no maximum age limit laid down for auctioneers who  

had been engaged on commission basis; (2)  that the  

auctioneers  were  not  employees  of  the  Board  or  the  

Committees as they were engaged specifically for the  

purpose of conducting auctions on commission basis and  

that their services were not governed by any Rules; (3)  

it was only appropriate in the absence of Rules, that  

the  instructions  issued  by  the  Chief  Administrator  

which  were  in  the  interest  of  the  Board  and  the  

Committees and, therefore, visualised under Section 33  

(4)(ii) of the Act, should be made applicable to the  

case of the appellants; and (4) in the light of the  

fact  that  till  then,  there  was  no  instructions  

regarding the maximum age of the auctioneers, it was  

appropriate for the Board to fix the retirement age at  

par with all government employees who were allowed to  

continue upto the age of 60 years and in this view of  

the matter, it could not be said that the step taken by  

the  Chief  Administrator  was   arbitrary  or  without  

basis.  We endorse the findings of the Division Bench.  

In  the  absence  of  rules,  it  was  open  to  the  Chief  

Administrator to fix the retirement age and it would be

5                                                                                                                                   REPORTABLE

futile for the appellants to contend that they should  

be allowed to continue to function till they remained  

physically fit. We  thus  find  no  merit  in  the  

appeals.  Dismissed with no order as to costs.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J     [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN]

NEW DELHI MAY 06, 2010.