Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jagdish Sahai and W. Broome, JJ.
SRIDHAR PRASAD NIGAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
. . Of .
Decided On : 10/22/1965
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 14 - FUNDAMENTAL RULE 56 - AGE OF RETIREMENT - COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - ARTICLE 311 - MALA FIDE - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WRIT PETITION - GOVERNMENT SERVANT - PUBLIC SERVANT - AGE OF SUPERANNUATION - DISMISSAL - REMOVAL - PUNISHMENT - MOTIVE - GUIDING PRINCIPLE - OPTION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - LEGAL RIGHT - DISCRIMINATION - CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SERVANT - UTTAR PRADESH PROVINCIAL CIVIL SERVICE (EXECUTIVE) - UTTAR PRADESH DISTRICT BOARDS ACT, SECTION 173 (2) - CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, RULE 49 - CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, RULE 55.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Sridhar Prasad Nigam and Hashmat Ali Khan, were members of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Civil Service (Executive). Nigam was born on 14 January 1909 and Khan was born on 9 June 1909. On 13 January 1964, Nigam received an order dated 13 January 1964, which stated that he would retire from service on the expiry of three months from the date of service of the order. On 10 April 1964, Khan received an order dated 10 April 1964, which stated that he would retire from service on the expiry of three months from the date of service of the order. Both Nigam and Khan filed writ petitions challenging the orders of retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Fundamental Rule 56, as amended, was not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also held that the petitioners had no legal right to continue in service until they attained the age of 58 years. The court further held that the orders of retirement were not mala fide. The court dismissed the writ petitions with costs.
Issues: 1. Whether the Fundamental Rule 56, as amended, was hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioners had a legal right to continue in service until they attained the age of 58 years? 3. Whether the orders of retirement were mala fide?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Fundamental Rule 56, as amended, was not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India because it did not discriminate against any particular class of Government servants. The court held that the rule gave the Government the option to retire Government servants after they attained the age of 55 years, but that this option was not arbitrary because it was based on the guiding principle of whether or not the Government servant was fit to be kept in service. 2. The court held that the petitioners had no legal right to continue in service until they attained the age of 58 years because the Fundamental Rule 56 fixed the age of superannuation at 55 years. The court held that the Government could validly frame a rule reducing the age of superannuation of a Government servant. 3. The court held that the orders of retirement were not mala fide because there was no evidence to show that the Government had acted colourably or that it had committed a fraud on the statute.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions with costs.
( 1 ) WRIT Petition No. 1882 of 1964 has been filed by Sridhar Prasad Nigam, while Writ Petition No. 3054 of 1964 has been filed by Hashmat Ali Khan. In the first writ. petition the respondents are the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Collector of Kanpur. In the second writ petition the sole respondent is the State of Uttar Pradesh. Since common questions of law have been raised in both the petitions, they may conveniently be disposed of together.
( 2 ) SRIDHER Prasad Nigam (hereinafter referred to as Nigam) was a member of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Civil Service (Executive), His date of birth, as alleged in the petition, is 14 January 1909. On 16 January 1964. Sri Nigram received an order dated 13 January 1964, which reads as follows: In exercise of the powers under Para, (f) of proviso 1 to Clause (a) of Fundamental Rule 56. Financial Handbook, Vol. II, Parts II to IV, as amended by the notification No. G-1. 194a/x 534 (19) 57, dated 19 October 1963, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to order that Sridhar Prasad Nigam, Daputy Collector, Kanpur, stall retire from service on the expiry of three months from the date of service of this order on him. And than, by means of letter dated 7 March 1964, Sri G. S. Singhal, Assistant Secretary to the Uttar Pradesh Government, conveyed to the Accountant-General, Uttar Pradesh, the sanction of the Governor to the retirement of Sridhar Prasad Nigam, Deputy Collector, Kanpur, with effect from the forenoon of 17 April 1964. By means of Writ Petition No. 1882 of 1964 it is prayed that a writ of certiorari issued quashing the notice dated 13 January 1964, as amended by the order dated 7 March 1964. It is further prayed that a writ of mandamus, order or direction be issued directing the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioner performing his duties until he attains the age of 58 years.
( 3 ) HASHMAT Ali Khan was initially in the employment of erstwhile State of Rampur, on the merger of Rampur in this State Hashmat Ali Khan was taken over in the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Civil Service (Executive) as a Deputy Collector with effect from December 1949. According to the averments made in the petition, his date of birth is 9 June 1909. On 10 April 1964 Government issued G. O. No. 3042/ii-A-79/1963. It reads: Whereas under G. O. No. 9393/11-A/1963, Hashmut Ali Khan, Deputy Collector, Kanpur, should retire from service on attaining the age of 55 years or on the expiry of three months from the date of the service of that order on you, whichever is later; And whereas the said order was issued before 1 January 1964 and double have arisha about its legality on the ground that it was issued before the said date; Now, therefore, the Governor has, in super session of the said order, ordered under Para. (1) of proviso 1 to Clause (a) of Fundamental Rule 56, contained in the Financial Handbook, Vol. II, Parts II to IV, as amended from time to time, that you be required to retire from service on the expiry of three months from the date of service of this notice on you, and you are hereby required to retire from service accordingly. On 8 July 1984 another order was issued convoying the sanction of the Governor to the retirement of Hashmat Ali Khan with effect from 16 July 1964. The Government Order and the order mentioned above were communicated to Hashmat Ali Khan. In Writ Petition No. 3054 of 1964, it is prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari or like writ or direction may issue to quash the order of retirement dated 10 April 1964. There is also a prayer for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to treat the petitioner as continuing a member of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Executive Branch) as heretofore. In addition, it has been prayed that any other relief as this Court may deem fit and proper be granted to the petitioner.
( 4 ) WITH a view to amend Fundamental Rule 53, on 19 October 1963 the notification re-produced below was
AI
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
