Retirement age of Class-IV municipal employees is sixty years; settlement agreements silent on prospectivity apply retrospectively.

The respondent, a Class-IV employee (Peon) with 31 years of service at the Visnagar Municipality, was retired on 29.08.1997 upon attaining the age of 58

The employee challenged this before the Labour Court, Mehsana, asserting that the retirement age for his cadre was 60 years and that he was retired prematurely out of vengeance

During the pendency of the Reference, a settlement agreement dated 11.06.2001 was reached between the Municipality and the Workers' Union in Conciliation Case IDC No. 25 of 2001, which fixed the retirement age for Class-IV employees at 60 years

The original employee died on 06.11.2007, and his widow (Respondent No. 2.1) continued the proceedings

The Labour Court, vide award dated 13.12.2011, declared the retirement at 58 illegal and directed payment of wages and benefits for the two-year gap (58 to 60 years)

The Municipality challenged this award via the present writ petition

1. Whether the settlement agreement dated 11.06.2001, fixing the retirement age of Class-IV employees at 60 years, applies retrospectively to an employee retired in 1997 whose dispute was pending at the time of the settlement

2. Whether the retirement of a Class-IV employee at the age of 58, in contradiction to the Gujarat State Service Rules and the subsequent settlement, is legally sustainable

The Court relied on the settlement agreement executed under the Industrial Disputes Act framework, specifically Condition No. 10, which mandates a retirement age of 60 years for sanitation workers and Class-IV employees

The Court applied the Gujarat State Service Rules pertaining to Class-IV employees, which statutory provisions prescribe 60 years as the age of superannuation

The Court rejected the petitioners' contention that the 2001 settlement applied only prospectively. It noted that the settlement was silent on its temporal application and did not expressly restrict benefits to employees currently in service

Critically, the Court observed that the respondent’s dispute regarding his retirement age was already sub-judice (pending in Reference) when the settlement was signed, making the terms applicable to his unresolved claim

The Court further balanced the settlement with the Gujarat State Service Rules, confirming that the legal standard for Class-IV retirement is 60 years

The court found the Municipality’s attempt to deny these benefits to a deceased employee of 30 years’ standing as a "meaningless" attempt to drag out litigation

The Court ordered the petitioners to pay costs of ₹25,000 to the respondent’s heir and directed the registry to disburse the deposited amount of ₹73,472 plus accrued interest to Respondent No. 2.1 within four weeks. Rule discharged