Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
MANINDRA CHANDRA SEN - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 533 Of 1972
Decided On : DECEMBER 13, 1972
RETIREMENT AGE - RAILWAY SERVANT - RULE 2046 OF RAILWAY ESTABLISHMENT CODE - CLASSIFICATION OF RAILWAY SERVANTS BASED ON DATE OF ENTRY INTO SERVICE AND LIEN OR SUSPENDED LIEN ON PERMANENT POST - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a railway servant, challenged the notification issued by the Railway Administration directing him to retire on completion of 58 years of age. He contended that he was entitled to be retained in service till the completion of 60 years of age as per Rule 2046(b) of the Railway Establishment Code, which applied to ministerial servants who had entered service on or before 31st March 1938 and held a lien or suspended lien on a permanent post. The petitioner argued that the classification made in the rule was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Rule 2046(b) as he did not hold a lien or suspended lien on a permanent post on 31st March 1938. The court further held that the classification made in the rule was not arbitrary and had a rational nexus with the object of creating more job and employment opportunities.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be retained in service till the completion of 60 years of age as per Rule 2046(b) of the Railway Establishment Code? 2. Whether the classification made in Rule 2046 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Rule 2046(b) as he did not hold a lien or suspended lien on a permanent post on 31st March 1938. The court relied on the definition of "lien" under Rule 2003(14) and the service records of the petitioner and Panchu Mohan Mukherjee, against whose vacancy the petitioner was appointed, to conclude that the petitioner did not hold any lien or suspended lien on a permanent post on the relevant date. 2. The court held that the classification made in Rule 2046 was not arbitrary and had a rational nexus with the object of creating more job and employment opportunities. The court noted that the rule was introduced in 1938 with the objective of creating more employment opportunities for young people and that it was not intended to adversely affect those who had some kind of right to their posts at the time of its introduction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the notification issued by the Railway Administration directing him to retire on completion of 58 years of age.
( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a temporary Markman against a vacancy in place of one Panchu Mohan Mukherjee in the erstwhile Eastern Bengal Railway on 5th July, 1937. On 1st September, 1938, the petitioner was promoted as a general clerk, Grade 'b' and on 8th June, 1940 was confirmed as a Markman with effect from 1st June, 1940. On 15th December, 1970, there was a Gazette notification indicating that the petitioner would retire on 1st November, 1971. The petitioner has challenged this notification issued by the Personnel Department of the Eastern Railway. The said notification stated that the petitioner would complete 58 years of age on the 1st November, 1971, and accordingly would retire from the service. Thereafter the petitioner on 20th August, 1971, made a representation to the Divisional Superintendent, Sealdah, to recall the notice on the alleged ground of premature retirement. He was informed on the 4th September, 1971, that he would not be eligible to be retained beyond 58 years as he was confirmed with effect from 1st June, 1940. Being aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a Rule Nisi. The Rule Nisi ultimately came up for hearing before Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. , and by a judgment delivered on 18th May, 1972, the learned Judge has discharged the Rule Nisi and dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Judge, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.
( 2 ) WHEN the petitioner was asked to retire, the relevant Rule 2046 read as follows:--"2046 (F. R. 56 (a) ) Expect as otherwise provided in this rule, every railway servant shall retire on the day he attains the age of fifty eight years. (b) A ministerial railway servant who entered Government service on or before the 31st March, 1938, and held on that date- (i) a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post, or (ii) a permanent post in a provisional substantive capacity under Clause (d) of Rule 2008 and continued to hold the same without interruption until he was confirmed in that post, shall be retained in service till the day he attains the age of sixty years. Note:-- For the purpose of this clause, the expression "government Services" include service rendered in ex-company and ex-State Railways, and in former provincial Government. (c) A ministerial railway servant referred to in Clause (b) may be granted extension of service under very special circumstances to be recorded in writing, after he attains the age of sixty with the sanction of the appropriate authority. (d) A railway servant to whom Clause (a) applies may be granted extension of service after he attains the age of fifty eight years with the sanction of the appropriate authority if such extension is in the public interest and the grounds therefore are recorded in writing: provided that no extension under this Clause shall be granted beyond the age of sixty years except in very special circumstances. (e) Railway Servants in Class IV service or post who prior to 1-12-62 were entitled to serve upto the age of sixty years including the new entrants to those categories shall continue to serve upto the age of sixty years. (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (g ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Note. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (h) Notwithstanding anything contained is this Rule, the appointing authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, have the absolute right to retire any railway servant on attainment of the age of fifty-five years or thereafter by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing. (i) Any railway servant may be given notice of not less than three months in writing by the appointing authority to retire from service on attainm
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
