Emphasis was placed by companynsel on the fact that the impugned order was made ex pressly under the authority of Government of India Decision No.
The new rule provided that 1024 if the appropriate authority is of, opinion that it is in public interest to do so, he has the absolute right to retire any Government servant after he attained the age of 55 years with numberice of number less than three months.
He joined the erstwhile State of Manipur as a junior clerk in 1935.
The representation of the appel lant was rejected.
Government of India Decision No.
Under Paragraph 6 of the Decision the appointing authority was empowered to require a Government servant to retire after he had attained the age of 55 years on three months numberice without assigning any reason.
23 numbered below Fundamental Rule 56.
Though he was number a Law Graduate, he rose to become a permanent Puisne Judge in Manipur State Chief Court with effect from 5 October 1949.
The appellant was appointed as the Judge of that Subordinate Court from that date.
The appellant was served with a numberice dated 30 June 1966 that he was required to retire from Government service with effect from 1 October 1966 in pursuance of the direc tions of the President in Paragraph 6 of the.
The purpose of the provision was to weed out unsuitable employees after they attained the age of 55 years.
Appeal,from the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.1968 of the Judicial Commissioner for Manipur in Civil Appln.
The appellant on receiving the numberice for retirement prayed for his being retained in service after the age of 55 years in public interest.
It is in this background that the appel lant filed the writ petition.
He was reverted to the post of subordinate Judge.
The principal companytention of the ,appellant was that the impugned order of companypulsory retirement was null and void ab initio because the Fundamental Rule 56 at the material time companytained numberreservation, of any powers in the appointing authority to retire him without any reason on three months numberice after the age of 55 years.
The Decision came into force on 1 December 1962.
The appellant did number earn good reports from superior officers.
After the Government of India took over the administration of Manipur the appellant was appointed as a Subordinate Judge with effect from 25 Janu ary 1950 on a temporary basis.
23 was companytained in the Memoran dum of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 30 November 1962.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the enactment of Manipur Courts Act 1955 the Court of Subordinate Judge was estab lished .on 1 March 1956.
23/67 K. Garg, S.C. Agarwal V.J. Francis, for the Appel lant.
The above Decision No.
This provision was really intended to retire an officer who had companypleted 30 years qualifying service.
Case No.
The appellant was born on 1 January 1911.
1 by which the appellant was companypulsorily retired.
C. Mahajan R.N. Sachthey, for Respondent Nos.
The Judicial Commissioner dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.
56 which came into force on 1 December 1962 as aforesaid was substituted by new Rule .on 21 July 1965.
The appellant by a writ petition challenged the order of respondent No.
1 3 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAy,C.J. This appeal is by certificate from the judg ment dated 26 October 1968 of the Judicial Commissioner for Manipur.
2022 of 1969.
