Judgment

RAY, C. J. :- These writ petitions challenge the validity of orders of compulsory, retirement. In writ petition No. 1253 of 1973 the petitioner was served with an order dated 30 March, 1973. The order was as follows:

"Whereas Shri Tara Singh Patwari has completed 25 years of qualifying service and whereas the State Government is satisfied that it is in public interest to dispense with further service of the said Government Servant.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the delegation made under R.244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules vide Finance Department Order No. F. 1 (34) FD-A (Rules/62) dated 13-12-63 the undersigned hereby gives notice to the said Shri Tara Singh requiring him to retire with effect from the date of the expiry of 3 calendar months from the service of this notice on him and further orders the compulsory retirement of Shri Tara Singh with effect from the said date.

Sd/-Collector ,

Ganganagar".

2. In writ petition No. 1353 of 1973. the petitioner was served with an identical order dated 30 March, 1973.

3. In writ petition No. 1448 of 1973 the petitioner was served with an order dated 28 April, 1973. The order was in terms similar to that in writ petition No. 1253 of 1973 except that the order did not state that "the State Government is satisfied that it is in public interest to dispense with the service of the petitioner."

4. In writ petition No. 1898 of 1973 the petitioner was served with an order dated 4 November, 1973 where also the order did not state that the compulsory retirement was made by the Government on being satisfied that it was in public interest.

5. In writ petition No. 270 of 1970 the petitioner was served with an order dated 30 March, 1970. The order was similar to writ petition No. 1253 at 1973 viz., that the petitioner completed 25 years of qualifying service and the retirement was in public interest.

6. Counsel on behalf of the petitioners contends that the orders are bad because they violate Arts, 14, 19 (1) (f), 31 and 311.

7. It is said that Article 14 is violated because there is no guidance as to who will be selected and on what basis the selection will be made for compulsory retirement. The impeached orders are said to violate Article 19 (1) (f) because it is an unreasonable restriction on the right to continue until the age of superannuation which is 55 years. It is emphasized that there is a right to continue as long as one is physically fit. The orders of compulsory retirement are challenged to violate Article 31 because it is deprivation of property without authority of law. Lack of authority of law is said to be infraction of Articles 14 and 19. The orders are also said to infringe Article 311 because these are made to remove persons from Government service.

8. Counsel for the petitioners also contended that the Government delegated power under the old rules and therefore, the orders were bad. It was said in writ petition No.1253 of 1973 that the order was made by the Collector pursuant to delegation under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules under order dated 13 December, 1963. The rules were amended in 1963 and again in 1972 and there was no delegation under the amended rules which governed the parties.

9. Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules as it stood prior to the 1963 and 1972 amendments is set out in the decision in Ganga Ram v. State of Rajasthan ILR (1961) 11 Raj 371. Rule 244 and the notes thereto are set out hereunder:

"(1) A Government servant may retire from service any time after completing 30 years qualifying service provided that he shall give in this behalf, a notice in writing to the appropriate authority, at least 3 months before the date on which he wishes to retire.

(2) Government retains an absolute right to retire any Government servant after he has completed 25 years qualifying service without giving any reasons and no claim to special compensation on this account will be entertained. This right will not be exercised except when it is in public i