( 1 ) COULD the order of the respondent Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (Corporation) compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service at the age of 55 with effect from 30. 11. 87, from the post of Steno-typist recorded by the then Commissioner, be said to be illegal, without authority, unconstitutional or in any way vulnerable ? This is the sole question which has been posed in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE skeleton projection of facts leading to the rise of this petition may be highlighted, at first.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was employed and was working as English Typist with the respondent Corporation. He was promoted as Steno/pa in course of his service and retired from service, compulsorily, by the Corporation at the age of 55. The petitioner remained in service of the Corporation for period of 36 years. The petitioner had relied on some certificates of his having done good work in service in support of his plea that the order of compulsory retirement recorded against him is illegal. Briefly stated, his claim is that without any rhyme or reason, he has been visited with the order of compulsory retirement by the Corporation at the age of 55, otherwise he would have been able to enjoy the employment till the age of 58 if not 60.

( 4 ) THE respondent Corporation has denied the claim and the averments made in the petition by filing counter by the Assistant Commissioner of the Corporation. The petitioner has also filed counter-affidavit and has stated that he is entitled to continue in the service upto 60 years according to the settlement between the staff Union and the respondent Corporation and that he has not applied for voluntary retirement.

( 5 ) COMPULSORY retirement is an important aspect and scheme of service jurisprudence. There is a purpose and policy behind it. There is a long interesting history in incorporating the right of the employer or a master for exercising compulsory retirement after certain period of service or after certain age. Compulsory retirement is, essentially, of two categories. (1) Compulsory retirement by way of punishment, (2) Compulsory retirement in exercise of rule or statutory power enjoyed by the employer;

( 6 ) COMPULSORY and premature retirement from the service, undoubtedly, constitutes an integral part of service life, mechanism and service jurisprudence. There are various important contours and chronicles of this branch. The right to hold the civil post or right of the Government servant has legal protection. The right continues until the age of retirement fixed by the Government, authority or employer in exercise of power regulating the conditions of service. No doubt, a public servant or holder of the civil post may, also, retire from service, voluntarily. Same way, master or the employer or the State, as the case may be, can compulsorily retire the servant, where empowerment to the master is available or by the Government by virtue of service rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Holders of service, also, may choose for voluntary retirement, after completion of certain specified period which is known as premature retirement. It may, also, be mentioned that right to continue in service can be determined by the competent authority, as a measure of penalty, after undergoing requisite process and procedure. It would be, therefore, appropriate, at this stage, to place on record certain important principles relating to compulsory or premature retirement. 1. The design and desideratum of premature or compulsory retirement is to weed out inefficient, corrupt, tainted, dishonest and dead-wood employees from the service. 2. Compulsory retirement simpliciter in accordance with the terms and conditions of service or under the statute or rule, obviously, does not amount to dismissal or removal or reduction in rank because the Government servant or the employee does not lose the terminal benefits till then earned.