B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD on merits.

( 2 ) HAVING heard the learned arguments of both the sides by the learned advocates, this Court confronts itself with the following question for determination:- whether the age of superannuation of the petitioner is 65 years by virtue of Rule 4 (2) of the Rules under Section 100 sub-section (2) (y) of the Madras hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (for short the 1951 act ) as per G. O. Ms. No. 584 Rural Welfare dated 28th May, 1952, in part-I which reads as follows:- "4 (2) Except in the case of a hereditary officer or servant, no person may be appointed to or hold any office unless he is not less than twenty-five and not more that sixty-five years of age. " the factual periphery in the case is limited. The petitioner is an Executive engineer and an employee of the respondent. Initially he was appointed as a Supervisor in the respondent-temple on 20-2-1970 and came to be promoted as Executive Engineer on 1-3-1990. His date of birth is 1-7-1939. Proceedings r. C. No. 81/452/96/3 dated 31-5-1996 were issued by the respondent to superannuate the petitioner on 30-6-1997 based on such a date of birth and on the basis of the age of superannuation being 58 years. The petitioner is aggrieved by that as according to him, his age of superannuation would be 65 years by virtue of Rule 4 (2) framed under the G. O. mentioned supra. The stand of the respondent is that by virtue of the law in operation regarding his service tenure, the age of superannuation is 58 years and not 65 years and such a rule under the G. O. supra is no longer in operation.

( 3 ) MR. Raghava Rao, the learned senior advocate has contended that the petitioner who was working in the temple, his services were to be governed by the 1951 Act and the G. O. Ms. No. 584 dated 28-5- 52 supra having been issued as the rule under Section 100 (2) (y) of the 1951 Act having the force of law; in spite of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for short the 1966 Act ) which was repealed under Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short the 1987 Act ), such a notification has been saved under both the enactments and in the absence of any rule in operation regarding the service condition of the petitioner as to superannuation he is entitled to the benefit of the age of superannuation at 65 years under the Rule supra. He also relied upon an unreported ruling of this Court in W. P. M. P. 1713 of 1983 in W. P. 1207 of 1983 dated 24-2-1983 in support of his contention. Principally, the learned advocate is relying upon the said rule under the G. O. Ms. No. 584 supra to draw an inference that the age of superannuation for the petitioner is 65 years although it is not stated in so many words and that having remained in force as on to day, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the same.

( 4 ) LEARNED Government pleader for Endowments for the respondent contends to the contrary, in the first place, to demonstrate that such a rule imports no meaning as is sought to be imported by the learned advocate of the petitioner and secondly, such a rule is not in force judging the law as on today in the light of the provisions of the 1966 Act and also the 1987 Act.

( 5 ) THERE cannot be any controversy that the petitioner was to be governed by the Rules governed by G. O. Ms. No. 584 dated 28-5-1952 supra when he joined the service and continued as such. The legal operation is also certain that barring Rule 4 (2) of G. O. Ms. No. 584, there was no other provision nor is there any provision in regard to the age of superannuation of the petitioner and the similar employees. It is true that a normal reading of the provision may not give the correct meaning as to the age of superannuation. But an inbuilt intellectual probe should expose the real meaning behind it. The rule meant that a hereditary officer or servant or any person (the wor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document