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

1979 Supreme(SC) 533

R.S.PATHAK, V.R.KRISHNA IYER
Dharam Dev Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.GANGULY, A.SUBASHINI, P.P.Rao, R.VENKATARAMANA, T.A.FRANCIS

JUDGMENT

 This appeal by special leave raises a short question as to whether the appellant, who was retired under Rule 56 (j) of the Fundamental Rules was so retired by a competent authority contemplated by the rule. Admittedly he was appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The only point that arises or, at any rate, we are concerned with is as to whether the retirement order is in conformity with Rule 56 (j) of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules 1965. The appointing authority according to R. 56 (j) is the competent authority. Who, then, is the appointing authority in the context of this case? The answer is to be sought under Rule 2 (a) which reads thus :

"In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires.....

2 (a) appointing authority in relation to a Government servant means -

(i) the authority empowered to make appointments to the service of which the Government servant is for the time being a member or to the grade of the Service in which the Government servant is for the time being included, or

(ii) the authority, empowered to make appointments to the post which the Government servant for the time being holds, or

(iii) the authority which appointed the Government servant to s









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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top