Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1964 (10) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rement (or superannuation) for government servants of his class was 55 years. Therefore, normally he should have retired on December 11, 1960. But by a notification dated November 27, 1957, the Government of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the Government) raised the age of retirement (or superannuation) to 58 years. This meant that the appellant would have retired on December 11, 1963. On May 25, 1961, the Government again reduced the age of retirement (or superan- nuation) to 55 years by a notification of that date issued under Art. 309 of the Constitution. Further a proviso was added in the rules relating to retirement in these terms Provided that a Government servant who had not retired oil or before June 17, 1957 but has subs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have retired because of the change in the age of retirement after May 25, 1961 and before December 30, 1961 were retained in service up to December 31, 1961 except those who reached the age of 58 years before December -'II. 1961 in which case they were to retire at the age of 58 years. In consequence of this order, the appellant who had crossed the age of 55 rears before May 25, 1961 but had Pot crossed the age of 57 years was retired on December 31, 1961, though if the earlier rule of November 27, 1957 had continued lie would have retired on December 11, 1963. This reduction in the age of retirement led to a writ petition by one Ram Autar Pandey in the High Court challenging the power of Government to reduce the age of retirement. That .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m Deka v. General Manager, North Frontier Railway(1). That case dealt with a rule in the Railway Code giving power to the Railway Administration to terminate the services of all permanent servants to whom the rule applied merely on giving notice for a specified period or on payment of salary in lieu thereof at any time during the service long before the age of retirement. It was held therein that the termination of a permanent public servant's tenure which was authorised by the rule in -question was nothing more nor less than removal from service within Art. 311 and therefore they were entitled to the protection of Art. 311(2). That case in our opinion has no application to the facts of the present case, for that case did not deal with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rgument that the termination of service resulting from change. in the age of superannuation amounts to removal within the meaning of Art. 311 and therefore the necessary procedure for removal should have been followed is negatived by the very case on which the appellant relies. We therefore hold that Art. 311 has no application to the termination of service of the appellant in the present case. The next contention on behalf of the appellant is that the rule is retrospective and that no retrospective rule can be made. As we read the rule we do not find any retrospectivity in it. All that the rule provides is that from the date it comes into force the age of retirement would be 55 years. It would therefore apply from that date to all gover .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rule and the second notification are only methods to tide over the difficult situation which would arise in the public service if the new rule was applied at once and also to meet any financial objection arising out of the enforcement of the new rule. The new rule therefore, cannot be struck down on the ground that it is retrospective in operation. The last argument that has been urged is that the new rule is discriminatory as different public servants have in effect been retired at different ages. We see no force in this contention either, retirement namely December 31, 1961 in the case of all public servants and fixes the age of retirement at 55 years. There is no discrimination in the rule itself. It is however urged that the second n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates