SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(SC) 28

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
I. N. Saksena, Appellant
Versus
The State of M.P., Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 670 of 1965,
D/- 30-1-1967.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co., for Appellant; Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. M. N. Shroff, Advocate, for Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.

Advocates:
B.SEN, I.M.SHROFF, M.N.SHROFF, Mahinder Narain, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY

Headnote:(1) Constitution of India - Art. 311 - order requiring government servant to retire compulsorily before reaching age of superannuation containing no express words from which stigma can be inferred - order does not amount to removal within meaning of Art. 311.

       Where an order requiring a Government servant to retire compulsorily contains express words from which a stigma can be inferred, that order will amount to removal within the meaning of Art. 311. But where there are no express words in the order itself which would throw any stigma on the Government servant the Court will not delve into Secretariat files to discover whether some kind of stigma can be inferred on such research. The consistent view of the Supreme Court has been that if the order of compulsory retirement before the age of superannuation contains no words of stigma it cannot be held to be a removal requiring action under Art. 311. AIR 1964 SC 449 referred to. [Para 7]

       (2) Constitution of India - Art. 309 - Fundamental Rules - R. 56 - Government can extend date of retirement of Government servant under F.R. 56 (a) or 56 (aa) - Government generally concluding that services of all Government servants should be retained till age of 58 in public interest - general order enough and individual order need not be passed.

       It is clear that it was open to Government to extend the date of retirement of a Government servant under F.R 56 (a) or 56 (aa), if it so desired. It is true that the extension contemplated by this rule was generally for individuals and an individual order is passed in such a case. But there is nothing illegal if the Government came to the conclusion generally that services of all Government servants should be retained till the age of 58 in public interest. In such a case a general order would be enough and no individual orders need be passed. In the instant case the memorandum of February 28, 1963 was merely in the nature of such a general order of extension of service by Government under F.R. 56 as it existed on that date. It seems that the Government thought it proper in the public interest to retain all Government servants upto the age of 58 under F.R. 56 and these executive instructions must be taken to provide such retention till a proper rule, as envisaged in the memorandum, came to be made. [Para 11]

Judgement

WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and arises in the following circumstances. The appellant was in the service of the State of Madhya Pradesh as a District and Sessions Judge. He was born on August 22, 1908 and would in the normal course have retired on completing the age of 55 years in August 1963. But on February 28, 1963, the Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a memorandum to all the Collectors in the State. Copy of this memorandum was also sent to the Registrar, High Court as well as the Finance Department and the Accountant-General. The relevant part of this memorandum is as follows:-

"The State Government have decided that the age of compulsory retirement of State Government s servants should be raised to 58 years subject to the following exceptions .. . . .........

2. * * * *

3. * * * *

4. * * * *

5. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing paragraphs, the appointing authority may require a Government servant to retire after he attains the age of 55 years on three months notice without assigning any reason.... . the power will normally be exercised to weed out unsuitable employees after they have attained the age of 55 years. A Government servant may also after attaining the age of 55 years voluntarily retire after giving three months notice to the appointing authority.

6. These orders will have effect from the 1st March 1963.

7. Necessary amendments to the State Civil Service Regulations will be issued in due course."

2. In consequence of this memorandum the appellant, who would have otherwise retired in August 1963, continued in service. On September 11, 1963, the Government sent an order to the appellant in the following terms:-

"In pursuance of the orders contained in General Administration Department memorandum No. 433-258-I (iii)/63, dated the 28th February 1963, the State Government have decided to retire you with effect from the afternoon of the 31st December 1963."

This order was obviously in terms of the fifth paragraph of the memorandum which said that the appointing authority may require a Government servant to retire after he attains the age of 55 years on three months notice without- assigning any reason."

3. On November 29,, 1963, a notification was issued by the Finance Department which was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette, dated December 6, 1963 in the following terms:-

"In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh hereby directs that the following further amendments Shall be made in the Fundamental Rules applicable to the State of Madhya Pradesh, namely:-

"All Rules in Chap. IX of the said Rules regarding Compulsory Retirement shall be deleted and the following shall be inserted as a new Rule 56, namely:-

"F. R. .56:-The date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant, other than a class IV employees, is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. Only Scientific and Technical personnel may be retained in service after the age of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the competent authority subject to their fitness and suitability for work, but they should not ordinarily be retained beyond the age of 60 years.

"The date of retirement of a Class IV Government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 60 years.

"The rule has come into effect from 1st March 1963."

It will be seen that this amendment to the Rules did not include that part of the fifth paragraph which gave power to the appointing authority to require a Government servant to retire after he attains the age of 55 years on three months notice without assigning any reason. Thereafter the appellant was retired. He then filed a writ petition on March 24, 1964 challenging the order retiring him. His contention was two-fold, namely-(i) that the rule as it stood after the amendment of November 29, 1963, published in the gazette of December 6, 1963, contained no provision reserving powe















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top