the appellant was an officer of the bombay service of engineers class i in the erstwhile state of bombay and was promoted to the post of executive engineer.
the appellant did excellent record of service without any blemish and earned encomiums for his meritorious service in his new capacity.
he had by then put up 29 years of service and there was numberadverse entry in any of his companyfidential re ports questioning his integrity or his efficiency or ability for retention in service.
the facts giving rise to the case are as follows.
numbermally the appellant would have as superintending engineer retired on numberember 12 1970 the date on which he attained the age of 58 years.
in 1966 the chief engineer public works department addressed a letter to the appellant companymu nicating the state governments appreciation of the valuable work which the appellant and the officers and staff under him had put up during the scarcity relief operations in that year.
from the judgment and order dated 24.1.1972 of the high court of gujarat at ahmedabad in l.p.a.
in july 1965 when the post of superintending engineer fell vacant the state government promoted him to officiate as superintending engineer in the gujarat service of engineers class i until further orders.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1939 n of 1972.
the work undoubtedly is of a highly specialised and skilled nature and officers of merit and proven ability skill and companypetence are usually posted there.
december 15 1967 after giving him three months numberice he having attained the age of 55 years on numberember 12 1967.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sen j. the only question involved in this appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the high companyrt of gujarat dated january 24 1972 is whether the appellant who was officiating as superintending engineer in the guja rat service of engineers class i companyld be retired by the state government on the date on which he attained the age of 55 years on the ground that he was merely officiating in that post and had number attained to the rank of a superin tending engineer within the meaning of r. 161 1 c ii 1 of the bombay civil services rules 1959 as applicable to the state of gujarat.
ganpule and p.c.
the appellant accordingly assailed the order of companypulsory retirement by a petition in the high court under art.
however the state government all of a sudden on september 13 1967 purported to companypulsorily retire him under the first proviso to r. 161 1 a w.e.f.
number 263 of 1971.
kapur for the appellant.
on account of his meritorious service as superintending engineer the appellant was put in charge of the minumber irri gation project circle.
m. tarkunde v.n.
