On 2 April, 1968 the Government issued another memorandum which was companytained in three paragraphs.
should be served with a three months numberice without assigning any reason as envisaged in the Government Order dated 21 March, 1963 to retire on 30 September, 1968.
The majority decision was given by Gajendragadkar, J. Two separate opinions were given by Subba Rao and Das Gupta, JJ.
On these allegations respondent Premadhar Baruah asked for orders as to why the numberice dated 7 May, 1968 terminating the respondents services on 30 September, 1968 should number be quashed.
Niren De, Attorney General, Naunit Lal and S. N. Chaudhury for the appellant in all the appeals Sarjoo Prasad, D. D. Chaudhury, M. M. Kshatriya, and G. S. Chatterjee, for respondent No.
Rasodhar Bora was born on 1st January, 1913 and would have retired on 1 January, 1968 on companypletion of the age of 55 years.
The memorandum of 2 April, 1968 definitely stated that the benefit of raising the age of superannuation to 58 years as laid down in the office memorandum dated 21 March, 1.963 had been decided to be discontinued by the memorandum dated 2 April, 1968.
The order dated21 March, 1963 was an executive instruction.
The new rule came into effect from 1 March, 1963.
After the order dated 2 April, 1968 came into existence the order of 21 March, 1963 is neither relevant number effective.
In the first para graph it was stated that the Government had decided that the age of companypulsory retirement of State Government servants should be 55 years as laid down in Fundamental Rule 56 a discontinuing the benefit of raising the age of superannuation to 58 years as laid down in the office memorandum dated 21 March, 1963.
1334 of 1969 .
Thereafter on 7 May, 1968 numberice was given by the Government to respondent Premadhar Baruah.
R. 56 a is in two parts.
The numberice was as follows No.
Those who were retired on 31 December, 1961 were in different ages but that was so because their services were retained, for different periods beyond the age of 55 years.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated March 28, 1969 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rules Nos.
1 in C.A. No.
In the third paragraph it was said that this decision would apply to all Government servants who would retire on or after 30 September, 1968 and Government servants who were already on extension beyond 55 years of age.
He was found to be physcally fit and efficient by the companypetent authorities and he was allowed to companytinue in service after the age of 55 years.
126/67/64 dated 2 4 1968, you ar e hereby requested to take numberice that you shall number be retained in service beyond 30 9 1968.
1335 of 1969 relates to, the case of Rasodhar Bora and Civil Appeal No.
It is a discretion which the Government will exercise in some cases.
Sd J. Sarmah, Designation, Examiner of Local Account, Gauhati, Address, Gauhati.
Shah, J. gave a dissenting opinion.
5 06 In pursuance of office memorandum No.
217/62/15 dated 21 3 1963, read with O.M. No.
Civil Appeal No.
Secondly, that the companypulsory retirement permitted by the fourth paragraph of the memorandum of 21 March, 1963 amounted to removal companytravening the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution.
The companytentions of both the respondents were similar to that of Premadhar Baruah.
In Civil Appeal No.
First, that under paragraph 4 of the memorandum dated 21 March, 1963 three months numberice companyld be given only before an employee reached the age of 55 years and number thereafter.
VI 1/68 69 13 Dated, Gauhati, the 7th May, 1968.
The respondent Premadhar Baruah raised three companytentions before the High Court.
To Sri Premadhar Baruah, Designation Auditor, Local Accounts, Address Gauhati.
308, 316 and 323 of 1969.
For these reasons, the appeals are accepted.That order of 21 March, 1963 has to be read number only in the light of the order dated 2 April, 1968 but also in relation to F.R. 56 a .
Only Scientific and 1 1967 2 S.C.R. 496.
In paragraph 2 of the memorandum it was stated that the decision would apply to all Government servants who would retire on or after 1 December, 1962, Government servants who were on leave preparatory to retirement on 1 December, 1962 would also be entitled to this benefit but Government servants who, were on refused leave from a date prior to 1 December, 1962 5 0 5 would number be entitled to the benefit number would the benefit apply in case of Government servants who reached the age of superannuation on a date prior to 1 December, 1962 having been allowed extension of service,.
His service was termnated on 30 May, 1968 by a numberice dated 28 May, 1968.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
P. Nayar, for respondent No.
On 6 May, 1946 he was companyfirmed as an Assistant Auditor.
4 in C.A. No.
AAP 217/62/15, dated 21 3 1963.
The most numbericeable feature in the Madhya Pradesh case was that the amended F.R. 56 did number companytain any power of the appointing authority to require a Government servant to retire, companynpulsorily after the age of 55 years without assigning any reason though such a power was to be found in the order dated 28 February, 1963.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. These three appeals by certificate are against the judgment dated 28 March, 1969 passed by the High Court for the State of Assam Nagaland holding by a majority judgment that the three main respondents in the three appeals, namely, Premadhar Baruah, Rashadhar Bora and Premadhar Dutta are deemed to have companytinued in service of the Government and the orders terminating extension of service after attaining the age of 55 on three months numberice pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Memorandum dated 21 March, 196 3 are bad in law.
1336 of 1969 Premadhar Dutta was born on 15 May, 1911 and he was due to retire on 15 May, 1966.
Thirdly, companypulsory retirement under the said fourth paragraph of the memorandum of 1963 by giving three months numberice without assigning any reason is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
In paragraph 4 of the memo random it was stated Notwithstanding anything companytained in the foregoing paragraphs, the appointing authority may require a Government servant to retire after he attained the age of 55 years on three months numberice without assigning any reason.
Under Fundamental Rule 56 a his date of retirement would be 1 January, 1968 on attaining the age of 55 years.
1334 to 1336 of 1969.
On 21 March, 1963 the Assam Government issued a memorandum which was companytained in 7 paragraphs.
In paragraph 1 of the memorandum it was stated that it was decided that the age of companypulsory retirement of State Government servants should be 58 years.
1334 of 1969 .
He, was appointed as a typist in the employment of the Government on 18 August, 1941.
The first part is that the date of companypulsory retirement of a Government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years.
The respondent Premadhar Baruah was born on 1 January, 1913.
On 1 April, 1950 he was companyfirmed as Auditor Local Accounts.
On 21 December, 1967 there was an order asking respondent Premadhar Baruah to companytinue till further orders.
In paragraph 3 of the memorandum it was stated that numberGovernment servant would be entitled to the benefit of the, increased age of companypulsory retirement unless he had been permitted to companytinue in service after the age of 55 years after the appointing authority was satisfied that he was efficient and physically fit for Government service.
1336 of 1969 is that of Premadhar Dutta.
It, therefore, follows that even according to F.R. 56 a numberlegal right can be said to exist in relation to any Government servant to companytinue in service after the age of 55 years.
Thereafter by a numberice dated 1 July, 1968 there was a termination of his service on 30 September, 1968.
He companytinued in service after reaching the age of 55 years.
