A.D.KOSHAL, V.R.KRISHNA IYER
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
K. R. Tahiliani: M. M. Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
V. R. KRISHNA IYER, J. :—Two government servants have been retired from service in exercise of the powers vested in the Central Government by Rule 56 (j) (i) of the Fundamental Rules. They have successfully challenged compulsory retirement by petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Union of India has come up in appeal to this Court by special leave. The sole question to be decided is whether a government servant officiating in a Class I or Class II service or post can be retired compulsorily by exercising the power under Rule 56 (j) (i) after he has attained the age of 50 years.
2. The biographical details of these two officials in government service need not detain us because the facts are admitted and the only point at issue is whether Rule 56 (j) (i) will apply to government servant who is only officiating in a Class I or Class II post or service. We agree with the High Court that on a correct interpretation of that Rule, an officiating hand will not be caught in the claws of the compulsory retirement provision. The reasons may briefly be stated by us now although these have been elaborately set out by the High Court (in the Delhi case*).
* 1978 Lab. I. C.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.