1964 (10) TMI 92 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the change in the rule of retirement, reducing the age of retirement to 55 years, amounted to removal of public servants without complying with Art. 311 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the rule in question was retrospective and if so, its validity.
3. Whether the rule resulted in inequality between public servants in the matter of retirement, violating Art. 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
1. The first issue addressed whether the reduction in the age of retirement to 55 years constituted removal of public servants without complying with Art. 311 of the Constitution. The judgment distinguished the present case from Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, North Frontier Railway, emphasizing that the rule in question pertained to the age of superannuation, not removal. It was held that the termination of service due to the change in the age of superannuation did not amount to removal within Art. 311, as the rule only dealt with the age of superannuation and did not violate the requirements of Art. 311(2).

2. The second issue revolved around the retrospective nature of the rule. The judgment clarified that the rule was not retrospective, as it applied from the date it came into force and did not affect government servants who were already retired before the new rule's implementation. The proviso and subsequent notifications were deemed as transitional measures to manage the impact of the rule change on public service, rather than retrospective application. The court concluded that the rule reducing the retirement age to 55 years was not retrospective in operation.

3. The final issue addressed whether the rule resulted in inequality between public servants in retirement, violating Art. 14 of the Constitution. The judgment highlighted that while public servants retired at different ages due to the rule change, the date of retirement was fixed uniformly as December 31, 1961 for all public servants affected by the new retirement age. The court emphasized that the rule itself did not discriminate, and the variations in retirement ages were a result of differing periods of service retention after reaching the age of 55. The court concluded that the notifications did not exhibit discrimination as they treated all public servants uniformly in setting December 31, 1961 as the retirement date for those affected by the rule change. Consequently, the challenge based on Art. 14 was dismissed.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the case.