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

1995 Supreme(Raj) 757

GOKAL CHAND MITAL, V.S.KOKJE
Vasudeo Vays – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan High Court – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.D. Vyas, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Sangeet Lodha, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. - The petitioner was a Judicial Officer who has been compulsorily retired under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter), by an order dated July 27, 1985 issued by His Excellency the Governor. According to the petitioner this order is bad as it does not satisfy the condition of the Officer's having completed 25 years of qualifying service or the Officer's completing 50 years of age. It is also contended that there was no basis for holding that it was in public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner who was born on July 15, 1937 had not completed 50 years of age on the date of his retirement in the year 1985. It was also contended that the petitioner's date of appointment in the Rajasthan Judicial Service was August 1, 1960 and he would have completed 25 years of service on July 31, 1985. According to the petitioner, the Order dated July 27, 1985 compulsorily retiring the petitioner could not have been issued legally on that day as on July 27, 1985 he had neither completed 50 years of age nor completed 25 years of qualifying service.

2. Clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the R















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top