1965 Supreme(Pat) 77

PATNA HIGH COURT
H.Mahapatra and G.N.Prasad JJ.
Ramanugrah Jha
Versus
State Of Bihar
Appeal from Original Decree No. 101 of 1960 ;
Decided On : JULY 28, 1965

An order of compulsory retirement passed under Note 1 to Article 465A of the Civil Service Regulations is invalid and inoperative if the officer concerned has not completed twenty-five years of qualifying service before the date of his compulsory retirement.

Headnote:

COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS - ARTICLE 465A, NOTE 1 - VALIDITY - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, SEC.240(3) - APPLICABILITY - MALA FIDES - DAMAGES.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a Deputy Collector and Deputy Magistrate, was compulsorily retired from service with effect from 12th February, 1948, under Note 1 to Article 465A of the Civil Service Regulations. He challenged the validity of the order on the ground that it was mala fide, illegal and ultra vires and that he was entitled to the tenure of his office till the date of superannuation and to receive his legitimate salary and emoluments up to that date amounting to Rs. 89,115.53 NP. Alternatively, he asked for a decree for Rs. 3,52,615.63 N.P. against the defendants as damages for loss of service and arrear and future pay, promotions, emoluments, pension etc. which he would have earned but for the illegal orders. He prayed for a decree for Rs. 1,00,000 for damages for harassment, mental torture, physical discomfort, expenses and loss of prestige due to illegal and mala fide proceedings and void orders passed by the Government.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the order of compulsory retirement was invalid and inoperative as it was not in accordance with the provisions of Note 1 to Article 465A of the Civil Service Regulations. The court further held that the plaintiff was entitled to continue in service till the date of his superannuation (1st December 1953) and was entitled to the monthly salary of Rs. 850 after his reinstatement on the 16th October, 1947 till the 30th November 1953 and thereafter pension according to rule. The court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for damages for Rs. 1000 against defendant No. 1.

Issues: 1. Whether the order of compulsory retirement was valid and in accordance with the provisions of Note 1 to Article 465A of the Civil Service Regulations? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to continue in service till the date of his superannuation? 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the monthly salary of Rs. 850 after his reinstatement on the 16th October, 1947 till the 30th November 1953 and thereafter pension according to rule? 4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for damages for Rs. 1000 against defendant No. 1?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order of compulsory retirement was invalid and inoperative as it was not in accordance with the provisions of Note 1 to Article 465A of the Civil Service Regulations. The court observed that the plaintiff had not completed twenty-five years of qualifying service before the date of his compulsory retirement and, therefore, the Government was not competent to pass the order of compulsory retirement against him with effect from the 12th February, 1948. 2. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to continue in service till the date of his superannuation (1st December 1953) as the order of compulsory retirement was invalid and inoperative. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the monthly salary of Rs. 850 after his reinstatement on the 16th October, 1947 till the 30th November 1953 and thereafter pension according to rule as he was entitled to continue in service till the date of his superannuation. 4. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for damages for Rs. 1000 against defendant No. 1 as he had suffered some mental harassment and expenses on account of the impugned order.

Final Decision: The suit was decreed in part for the above with proportionate costs against defendant no. 1. The suit was dismissed against defendant no. 2 but without costs. The plaintiff was entitled to his costs against defendant no. 1 for both the Courts. The appeal was allowed in part and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside. The defendant No. 1 was allowed a period of three months from the date of the judgment to pay the decretal amount to the plaintiff, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the same through execution with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the decree to the date of realisation.