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

1988 Supreme(SC) 720

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.
Hari Shankar Gaur and another, Petitioners
Versus
The Delhi Transport Corporation and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 1244 of 1986 with S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8984 of 1986,
Decided on 30-11-1988.
WITH
Khazan Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation and another, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Jitender Sharma, Advocate, for Petitioners / Appellants; Mr. T. U. Mehta, Sr. Advocate and Mr. G. K. Bansal, Advocate with him, for Respondents.

Advocates:
G.K.BANSAL, JITENDRA SHARMA, T.N.Mehta

Headnote:

Retirement – Pre-mature retirement - According to the petitioners, before they were taken over, service conditions of employees of GNIT Company were governed by Gwalior State Civil Service Rules - But the respondent denied that and said that they were governed by Madhya Bharat Civil Service Rules - Before that there was no State - Repeatedly opportunity was given to respondent counsel to find out as to what rules were applicable to employees of GNIT company before Madhya Bharat was formed - Ultimately they pleaded their inability to place any rule - So far as Gwalior State Civil Service Rules are concerned, a copy of it in Hindi has been filed by the petitioners with the English translation thereof - It is not disputed that these were the rules governing the civil servants in Gwalior State - It is also not disputed that GNIT Company was originally a Company incorporated in India where it was owned by rulers of erstwhile Gwalior State - According to petitioners Civil Service rules of Gwalior were made applicable to these people - In addition to what has been stated in petition and which has not been controverted, they have also filed a judgment of Industrial Court in Madhya Pradesh where this question about conditions of service about retirement came into dispute after the formation of Madhya Bharat and part of GNIT Company which was operating in territories of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat was taken over by the State of Madhya Bharat Road Transport Corporation - There too, a similar agreement was reached and the question arose as to whether the persons who were in employment before the taking over, were governed by Rules of Gwalior State Civil servants - It was held that those were rules and in those rules normal age of retirement was 60 years – Held, argument is attractive but on a deeper consideration court find little merit in it - If the Delhi Transport Corporation had exercised its right to retire petitioners on attaining the age of 58 years, argument would have been tenable - But that was not done by the Corporation - Corporation retired petitioners on the ground that they attained the age of superannuation at 58 years - It is so stated by the notice issued by the Deputy Personnel Officer petitioner - Court are told similar notices were issued to other employees as well - That means the Corporation was under impression that the petitioners have no right to continue beyond the age of 58 years - Court are of the opinion that the persons who originally were in the employment of GNIT and were employed and who continued in service and onwards will have right to remain in service up to 60 years unless the option to retire was exercised by person or by the Corporation at 55 years - In the result writ petition and the SLP are allowed to extent indicated - Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT

OZA, J.:— This special leave petition is filed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting a petition filed by the petitioners. A separate writ petition for the same relief is also filed in this Court. The two matters raise a simple question about the age of retirement of the employees in the Delhi Transport Corporation, who were originally employed in the erstwhile Gwalior and Northern India Transport Company (GNIT Company for short) in 1946 or before that.

2. It is not in dispute that before 1948 these petitioners were employed in the GNIT Company which was a company owned by the Rulers of Gwalior in the erstwhile native State of Gwalior. The said company was operating the transport services in Delhi and areas around up to.13th May 1948. On 14th May 1948 the transport services in Delhi were taken over by the Government of India, the Ministry of Transport and it was named as "Delhi Transport Service". The services of all the employees of the erstwhile GNIT Company were taken over by the Government of India but they were continued to be governed by the rules which were in force before taking over. Subsequently it was taken over by the Delhi Municipal Corporation. Later on by the Delhi Transport Undertaking which came to be termed as "Delhi Transport Corporation".

3. Clause 7 of the agreement by which the GNIT services in Delhi were taken over by the Government of India provided that the services of the employees who were employed prior to 28th October, 1946 and were in continuous service till 14th May, 1948 shall not be taken over on the terms not less liberal than those they were governed and therefore the employees who were in employment prior to 28th October, 1946 were treated as protected employees.

4. These facts are not in dispute. According to the petitioners, before they were taken over, the service conditions of the employees of GNIT Company were governed by the Gwalior State Civil Service Rules. But the respondent denied that and said that they were governed by the Madhya Bharat Civil Service Rules. Admittedly, Madhya Bharat came into existence in 1948 only. Before that there was no State of Madhya Bharat. Repeatedly opportunity was given to the respondent counsel to find out as to what rules were applicable to the employees of the GNIT company before Madhya Bharat was formed. Ultimately they pleaded their inability to place any rule. So far as Gwalior State Civil Service Rules are concerned, a copy of it in Hindi has been filed by the petitioners .with the English translation thereof. It is not disputed that these were the rules governing the civil servants in the Gwalior State. It is. also not disputed that GNIT Company was originally a Company incorporated in India where it was owned by the rulers of the erstwhile Gwalior State. According to petitioners Civil Service rules of Gwalior were made applicable to these people. In addition to what has been stated in the petition and which has not been controverted, they have also filed a judgment of the Industrial Court in Madhya Pradesh where this question about the conditions of service about retirement came into dispute after the formation of Madhya Bharat and the part of GNIT Company which was operating in the territories of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat was taken over by the State of Madhya Bharat Road Transport Corporation. There too, a similar agreement was reached and the question arose as to whether the persons who were in employment before the taking over, were governed by the Rules of the Gwalior State Civil servants. It was held that those were the rules and in those rules the normal age of retirement was 60 years.

5. In view of these circumstances it appears beyond doubt that these people who were employed in the GNIT Company before taking over in Delhi by the Government of India were governed by the Gwalior State Civil Service Rules. The Gwalior Civil Service Rules provided:

"CHAPTER 1-A

7(a)(1) Every employee has a right to seek retire

















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