Judgement

SIKRI, J. : The respondent, Shri Madam Mohan Nagar, filed a writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for quashing the order of compulsory retirement, dated July 28, 1960 , passed against him. The order of compulsory retirement was in the following terms :

"I am directed to say that the Governor has been pleased to order in the public interest under Art. 465-A and Note (1) thereof of the Civil Service Regulations, the compulsory retirement with effect from September 1, 1960 of Sri Madan Mohan Nagar, Director State Museum, Lucknow, who Completed 52 years of age on July 1, 1960, and 28 years and 3 months of qualifying service on 31st May 1960, as he has outlived his utility."

2. The learned Single Judge who heard the Petition quashed the order on the ground that "Rule 465 of the Civil Service regulations as amended by the U. P. Government while providing a criterion for the guidance of Government when inflicting compulsory retirement on a Government servant nevertheless violates the guarantee of equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment under Art. 16 (1)" of the Constitution. He further held that the order inflicting, compulsory retirement on the petitioner was invalid because it was passed in violation of the principals of natural justice.

3. The State appealed and the Division Bench on appeal upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the order of compulsory retirement was passed in violation of the provisions of Art .311 of the Constitution and was therefore, ultra vires. The State having obtained special leave, the appeal is now before us.

4. Before we deal with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, we may give a few facts and set out Art. 465-A and Note (1) thereof of the Civil Service Regulation as amended by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent was first appointed in 1931 on one year s probation to the post of Custodian, Sarnath Muscum, Banaras, under the Archaeological Department of the Government of India. In 1939, he was posted to Mathura Museum as Curator and he was appointed substantively to this post from January 5, 1941. Later, he was appointed on the recommendation of the Provincial Public Service Commissions Curator of the State Museum, Lucknow, on a scale of pay Rs. 250 to Rs. 850. The post of Curator was upgraded to the cost of Director, State Museum, Lucknow, in the U. P. Educational Service, Senior Scale, and the respondent was appointed to it. Thereafter the respondent continued in service as Director of State Museum, Lucknow, until he was compulsorily retired by the order of the Government, dated July 28, 1960 which has already been set out above. It is common ground that no enquiry as contemplated by Article 311 (2) was held.

5. The relevant part of Art. 465-A of the Civil Service Regulation is in the following terms.

"Government retains the 1ight to retire any Government servant after he has completed years qualifying service without giving any reasons, and no claim to special compensation on this account shall be entertained.

This right shall only be exercised by Government in the Administrative Department when it is in the public interest to dispense with the services of Government servant who has outlived his usefulness."

6. The learned Solicitor- General, who appears on behalf of the appellant has urged that the fact that the impugned order of compulsory retirement states the reason for compulsory retirement, namely,. that the respondent had outlived his utility, does not lead to the conclusion that the order amounts to dismissal or removal because in every case of compulsory retirement it is implied that the person who is compulsorily retired had outlived his usefulness. He refers to Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh. 1955-1 SCR 26, and says that in that case it was implied that Shyam Lal was not fit to be retained in service. We are unable to read Shyam Lal s case in that manne