1997 Supreme(Raj) 1123

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Arun Madan, J.
Ashok Kumar Pareek and others - Appellant
Versus
R.S.R.T.C. and another - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7576/92; 2774/93; 5942/92; 7612/92; 5841/92; 7817/92; 6081/91.
Decided On : 25-04-1997

Headnote:

COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - PUBLIC SERVANT - REGULATION 57(A)(I) OF THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES SERVICE REGULATIONS OF 1965 - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE - POWER OF THE CORPORATION TO COMPULSORILY RETIRE ITS EMPLOYEES - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - JUDICIAL REVIEW - EXTENT OF - MALA FIDES - BURDEN OF PROOF - SERVICE RECORD OF THE PETITIONERS - RELEVANCE - AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS - EFFECT - APPLICABILITY TO THE PETITIONERS - RETIREMENT BENEFITS - CLAIM OF - RIGHT TO - WHETHER ABSOLUTE OR VESTED - PROMOTIONAL BENEFITS - WHETHER CAN BE CLAIMED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT - PENDENCY OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - EFFECT ON THE POWER OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, ex-employees of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC), challenged the impugned orders of their compulsory retirement passed by the RSRTC. The petitioners contended that the impugned orders were illegal, contrary, malicious, and in colourable exercise of power by the concerned authorities of the RSRTC on the grounds that (a) at the time of their appointment, the RSRTC Regulations did not provide for compulsory (premature) retirement, (b) the amended provision of Regulation 57(a)(i) was not applicable to them as it amounted to a change of service conditions to their detriment, (c) the order of premature retirement was passed when they were under suspension, (d) neither any disciplinary enquiry was pending against them nor had they filed any detailed reply to the charge-sheet, (e) the order of compulsory and premature retirement was a camouflage of disciplinary proceedings, (f) the impugned order was passed with ulterior motive and smacks of bias and mala fide, (g) the Chairman had no competence to exercise the power of compulsory and premature retirement, and (h) the impugned order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. The RSRTC, on the other hand, contended that the impugned orders were passed in accordance with Regulation 57(a)(i) of the Regulations, which empowered the Corporation to compulsorily retire its employees who had completed 25 years of qualifying service and attained the age of 50 years. The RSRTC further contended that the petitioners' service records were tainted with several punishments, including warnings, censures, and stoppage of increments, and that the impugned orders were passed after due consideration of their service records.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the impugned orders of compulsory retirement were valid and not open to challenge. The court observed that the RSRTC had the absolute right to compulsorily retire its employees under Regulation 57(a)(i) of the Regulations, provided that the procedural safeguards were complied with. The court further held that the petitioners' contention that the impugned orders were passed with mala fide was baseless and unfounded, as they had failed to discharge the burden of proving mala fides. The court also rejected the petitioners' contention that the amendment of Regulation 57(a)(i) was not applicable to them, holding that the amendment did not amount to a change of service conditions to their detriment. The court further held that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners did not bar the RSRTC from passing the impugned orders of compulsory retirement. The court also held that the petitioners had no absolute or vested right to promotional benefits, and that the RSRTC had the sole prerogative to extend or not extend promotional benefits to its employees.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned orders of compulsory retirement were valid and not open to challenge? 2. Whether the RSRTC had the absolute right to compulsorily retire its employees under Regulation 57(a)(i) of the Regulations? 3. Whether the petitioners' contention that the impugned orders were passed with mala fide was baseless and unfounded? 4. Whether the amendment of Regulation 57(a)(i) was not applicable to the petitioners? 5. Whether the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners barred the RSRTC from passing the impugned orders of compulsory retirement? 6. Whether the petitioners had an absolute or vested right to promotional benefits?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The RSRTC had the absolute right to compulsorily retire its employees under Regulation 57(a)(i) of the Regulations, provided that the procedural safeguards were complied with. 2. The petitioners' contention that the impugned orders were passed with mala fide was baseless and unfounded, as they had failed to discharge the burden of proving mala fides. 3. The amendment of Regulation 57(a)(i) was not applicable to the petitioners, as the amendment did not amount to a change of service conditions to their detriment. 4. The pendency of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners did not bar the RSRTC from passing the impugned orders of compulsory retirement. 5. The petitioners had no absolute or vested right to promotional benefits, and that the RSRTC had the sole prerogative to extend or not extend promotional benefits to its employees.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs and the impugned orders of compulsory premature retirement of the petitioners were confirmed being not open to challenge.