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

1980 Supreme(SC) 99

A.D.KOSHAL, V.R.KRISHNA IYER
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
K. R. Tahiliani: M. M. Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
A.B.DATAR, A.Subhashini, ANITA, G.D.GUPTA, G.L.SANGHI, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, P.K.PALLI, SHANTI BHUSHAN

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.









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