ORDER

C.A. Nos. 4159 and 4158 of 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3843/86 & 4988/85)

Special leave granted.

C.A. No. 4126/85 :

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondent in this appeal has died and he has instructions to withdraw this appeal. This appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

2. This is a batch of appeals arising from judgments and orders of the High Court of Madras. The principal judgment of the High Court was delivered by a Full Bench and that is the subject matter of C.A. No. 352/85. In the other matters the Full Bench judgment was followed.

3. The respondent in each of these appeals was an employee of the appellant, State of Tamil Nadu. He was compulsorily retired from service in the public interest after he had attained the age of 50 years. He challenged the order of retirement on the ground that the provisions of the rule and the directions of the State Government applicable to compulsory retirement had not been followed. The Full Bench came to the conclusion that the case of the respondent had to be upheld and he was reinstated or treated as reinstated, as the case might be, with consequential benefits.

4. The rule in question is Fundamental Rule 56(d), which reads thus :

"F.R. 56(d) : Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the appropriate authority shall if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, after he has attained the age of fifty years or after he has completed twenty-five years of qualifying service. Any Government servant who has attained the age of fifty years or who has completed twenty-five years or qualifying service may likewise retire from service by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority."

5. The State Government, by G.O.Ms. No. 761 Public (Services A) Department dated 19.3.1973, gave directions for the constitution of review committees and the procedure to be followed for scrutiny in matters relating to compulsory retirement, Clause 4 thereof reads thus :

"The Government also direct that cases coming up for retirement during the first half year of any year shall be sent up for review before the 1st July of the previous year. The case of persons who are due for review in the second half of any year shall be sent before the 1st January of the year."

6. The High Court posed the question : what is the effect of not referring the matter of his compulsory retirement to the review committee six months before the employee attains the age of 50 years or completes 25 years of service. It held that there was a duty cast on the heads of departments to consider every one of the cases of employees who were due for review in accordance with the instructions and, "in such circumstances it shall be presumed that if an officer s name had not been sent up to the review committee, the Heads of Departments and the Government considered that there were no grounds for sending up the proposal to the review committee in respect of that officer........We are, therefore, of the opinion that if an officer s name who is due to attain the age of 50 years or has completed 25 years of service had not been sent to the review committee it shall be presumed that there was no ground for sending his name for consideration for compulsory retirement and that it is in those circumstances the competent authority had not referred the matter to the review committee."

The High Court went on to say that "it may even be presumed that there was an assessment in favour of further continuance of the officer and any review subsequent to the attainment of 50 years of age shall be considered to be a second review..........."

7. On a plain reading of the rule and the instructions, the view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The rule permits the appropriate authority to retire any Government servant after he has