JUDGMENT

K. N. Singh, J. - Hardwari Lal, petitioner. has challenged the validity of an order issued by the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Allahabad dated 30-12-1970 retiring him from service on the expiry of three month's period from the date of the service of the order.

2. The petitioner was recruited as a Lineman, Telephones in the Telegraph Department on 3rd August, 1938. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector, Telephones. Petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 30th June, 1970 by the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Allahabad, opposite party No. 1, under his order dated 26th June, 1970 retiring him from service compulsorily under clause (J) Fundamental Rule 56. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the order dated 26th June, 1970. The writ petition was allowed by Hon'ble D. S. Mathur. J. on 28th September, 1970 and the order dated 26th June, 1970 was quashed on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 55 years age, hence he could not legally be retired under Fundamental Rule 56 (J). The petitioner was thereupon reinstated but he was again retired from service by the order of the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, dated 30th December, 1970 passed in exercise of his powers under Rule 2 (2) of the Libralised Pension Rules on the completion of petitioner's 30 years qualifying service. By means of the present petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order dated 30th December, 1970.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He has made two pronged attack on the impugned order. According to him there are two different set of Rules conferring power on the Appointing Authority to compulsorily retire a Government servant under Fundamental Rule 56 (J), and under Rule 2 (2) of the Libralised Pension Rules. There are, however, no guiding principles as to under what circumstances action should be taken under Fundamental Rule 56 (J) or under Rule 2 (2) of Libralised Pension rules, the matters is left to the sweet will and arbitrary action of the Officers. Learned counsel has further urged that rule 2(2) of Libralised Pension Rules itself is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the rules do not lay down any guiding principle or criterion for the guidance of appointing authority in retiring a Government servant on the completion of 30 years' qualifying service. In the absence of any such guiding principles, the authorities are free to pick and choose according to their sweet will in an arbitrary manner, which is violative of equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The impugned order of retirement is alleged to have been passed malafide.

4. Fundamental Rule 56 (J), as applicable to Government servants of the Union of India, as amended in May, 1969, reads:-

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice.

(i) of he is in Class I or Class II service or post the age limit for the purpose of direct recruitment to which is below 35 years after he has attained the age of 50 years.

(ii) In any other case after he has attained the age of 55 years. Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Government servant referred to in clause (e) who entered Government service on or before 23rd July, 1966 and to a Government servant referred to in clause (f)."

5. Under the enacting clause of Fundamental Rule 56, as applicable to the servants of the Union of India, the age of superannuation is 58 years. Clause (j) of Rule 56, however, enumerates circumstances under which the services of a Government servant can be dispensed with by compulsorily retiring him on attaining the ag