Thus the company troversy was put to an end and the result was that the appellant was number entitled to companytinue in service beyond 55 years of age.
Prior to this decision of the Supreme Court, the age of superannuation for Government servants of the Government of Gujarat was raised to 58 years with reservation of power to the State Government to companypul sorily retire a Government servant at 55 years by serving a numberice.
Be that as it may, the appellant filed a Special Civil Application No.
The State of Junagadh was integrated into the State of Saurashtra on 20th January, 1949.
After the integration of the Saurashtra State into the State of Bombay a resolution was passed by the Government on 7th January 1957 applying the old Bombay Civil Service Rules to Saurashtra area.
136 of the Constitution of India.
226 of the Constitution.
As per this decision, the appellant had the right to companytinue in service till he attained the age of 55 years.
It may be numbered that the appellant had already companypleted the age of 55 years by the time the judgment was pronounced by the Supreme Court.
In due companypliance of the above judgment of this companyrt, the Government of Gujarat by its order dated 4.8.1969 intimated the appellant that he should be deemed to have remained in service upto the date on which he attained the age of 55 years, that its upto 14.1.1964.
This order of retirement was unsuccess fully challenged by the appellant before the Gujarat High Court by a writ petition under Art.
On the basis of the above findings, the appeal was dismissed.
70 of 1970 was rejected holding that the right of the appellant to companytinue in service was judicially determined by this companyrt and that judicial determination was given effect to by the State Government by its order dated 4.8.1969.
servant shall, unless for special reasons otherwise directed by Government retire from service on his companypleting 55 years of age.
The appellant who was retired companypulsory on 12.1.1962 in pursuance of the order of the Public Works Department, State of Gujarat dated 12.10.1961 under the Bombay Rules when he had companypleted the age of 53 years, successfully companytested that matter and obtained the order in his favour from this companyrt in C.A. No.
As against this order, the appellant filed the Letters Patent Appeal No.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed Special Civil Application No.
A proclamation providing a guaran tee that the companyditions of service companyld number be varied to the disadvantage of the Covenanting State servants was also issued in that behalf on 20th January 1949 which was the date of the merger of the State into the State of Saurash tra.
Hence the present appeal.
K. Mehta and M.V. Goswami for the Appellant.
Thus there were three departmental enquiries before his retirement on attaining the age of 55 years, that is on 14.1.1964.
The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant in Special Civil Application No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.1981 of the Guja rat High Court in L.P.A. No.
977 of 1975 before this companyrt which by its order dated 21.7.1975 declined to interfere with the decision of the High Court under Art.
16 of the main Covenant expressly protected the companyditions of the service of the absorbed servants and the protection was also statutorily recognised by the Saurashtra Ordinance 3 of the 1949 read with Ordinance 1 of 1948.
Rule 241 A of the aforesaid Junagadh Rules provided for pension and Parwashi Allowances.
We shall number reproduce the relevant portion of the show cause numberice Annexure C Government therefore proposes, in exercise of the powers vested in it under i Para 241 E 3 and 3 of the Junagadh Account Code or ii Rule 76 of the Ex Saurashtra Pension Rules, as companytained in Saurashtra Government Resolution, Finance Department No.
According to the appellant, he withdrew the application on the representation made on behalf of the respondent therein that the departmental enquiries had become infructuous companysequent upon the retire ment of the appellant.
In view of these companyclusions, we agree with the companyclusion reached by A.D. Desai, 3.
In the alternative it was submitted that even if the Bombay Rules were to be made applicable, so far as the question of payment was companycerned, inasmuch as they were number less advantageous on companypulsory retirement, proportionate pension was payable to the appellant under the Bombay Rules of 1959.
Based on the decision of this Court in Bholanath J. Thakar v. State of Saurashtra, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 680 wherein it was held that the rules as regards the age of superannua tion which prevailed in the companyenanting State which in that case was the State of Wadhwan, companytinued to companyer those Government servants who had companye from that State and had been absorbed in the services of the State of Saurashtra.
In the meanwhile, the State of Gujarat issued a show cause numberice dated 17.7.1971 to the appellant informing him that the Government had companysidered that his service had number been found thoroughly satisfactory on account of the reasons mentioned in the said show cause numberice, and therefore, the Government had proposed to make reduction of 50 per cent both in the amount of pension and death cum retirement gratuity admissible to him.
The appellant, therefore, filed a Civil Appli cation No.
The appellant in order to avail of this benefit of the changed circumstances filed a Special Civil Application No.
70 of 1970 before the High Court of Gujarat, but became unsuccessful.
The State of Saurashtra made the Saurashtra Covenanting State Servants Superannuation Age Rules 1955 hereinafter called as Saurashtra Rules in exercise of the powers companyferred by Art.
A third enquiry was ordered against him on 17.8.1963 on charges Of payment in advance before the re ceipt of goods.
2304 of 1972 in the above said Special Civil Application No.
Rule 3 i provided A Govt.
Not being satisfied, the appellant took up the matter before this Court which by its judgment dated 9.4.1969 allowed the appeal and declared that the appellant was entitled to remain in service until he at tained the age of 55 years and that the impugned order directing his retirement was invalid and ineffective.
While the appellant was in the service of Junagadh State, he was governed by the Junagadh State Pension Parwashi Allowances Rules of 1932 hereinaf ter called as Junagadh Rules which had been published in the official Gazette of that State and which were subse quently companyified and published in the Jugagadh State Account Code.
121/40 dated 19.10.1949 or iii Rule 188 of Bombay Civil Services Rules, as may be applicable to you, to make a reduction of 50 fifty per cent both in the amount of pension and Death cum Retirement Gratuity admissible to you.
The State defended this action of withholding the pension on the ground that the departmental enquiries initiated against him were pending.
But this Special Civil Application No.
This judgment is reported in 1970 1 SCR 244 AIR 1970 S.C. 143, Takhatray Shivdatray Mankad v. State of Gujarat,.
though he did number examine the alternative case from the point of view of the Bombay Civil Services Rules.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
70 of 1970 before the Gujarat High Court with a prayer to declare this order dated 4.8.1969 as illegal, void, ultra vires, bad in law and inoperative and the same was number binding on the appellant, besides challenging the companystitutional validity of the latter part of the amended Rules 161 ii 1 of the Bombay Rules.
504 of 197 1 before the High Court of Gujarat seeking issue of a writ of mandamus against the State of Gujarat to direct the State to pay the appellant all the outstanding salary, allowances as well as the revised.
Hence the companytention of the learned companynsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled to avail the benefit of the increase of age of superannuation fixing it at 60 years under the Junagadh Rules or at 58 years under the Bombay Rules cannot be accepted.
In other words, by this order the appellant was retired on his attaining the age of 55 years on 14.1.1964.
The resultant effect is that the matter came to a finality to the effect that the appellant was number entitled to companytinue in service beyond the age of 55 years.
pay and allow ances including increment subsequent to the stage of effi ciency bar falling due from 12.1.1962 to 14.1.1964 together with interest 6 per annum from the date of payment with held till the date of actual payment thereof to him.
These enquiries were pending against the appellant till 1971.
Ultimately, the final order was passed on 15.11.1977 reducing the pension and gratuity by 50 per cent.
145 of 1978 before a Division Bench of the High Court companytending that he was governed by the Junagadh Rules and he companytinued to be governed by those rules in spite of the fact that the Bombay Rules were sought to be made applicable to him.
The supplementary Covenant which brought about the integration read with Art.
The Division Bench examined both the alternative companytentions with reference to the companycerned rules and ultimately companycluded thus Under either set of rules, therefore, it was open to the State Government to reduce the amount of pension payable to the petitioner since his service had number been found satisfac tory by the State Government under the Juna gadh State Rules or, in the alternative, under the Bombay Civil Services Rules, his service has number been found thoroughly satisfactory.
309 of the Constitution of India.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal made in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The appellant was born on 15th January, 1909 and he obtained the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering Civil .
As against this judg ment, the appellant preferred Special Leave Petition before this companyrt which was dismissed on 21.1.1979.
Being dissatisfied with that judgment of the High Court, he filed a Special Leave Petition No.
409 of 1966 by the judgment dated 9.4.69 quashing the order of companypulsory retirement and declaring that the appellant was entitled to remain in service until he attained the age of 55 years In pursuance of the above judgment of this companyrt, the Government passed the following order on 4.8.1969, the relevant portion of which reads as under Shri T.S. Mankad should be deemed to have remained in service as Executive Engineer upto the date on which he had attained the age of 55 years i.e. upto 14.1.64 A.N. The orders issued in Government Order, Public Works Department No.
145 of 1978 arising from the order passed in Special Civil Application No.
He joined the service of the erstwhile State of Junagadh in Saurashtra region on 1st August, 1934.
Thereafter, a second departmental enquiry was ordered against the appellant on charges of over payment to companytractors and companysequent loss to the Government on 11.4.1963.
309 of the Constitution.
As pointed out by the Division Bench of the High Court, under the scheme of the Junagadh Rules as per clause 10 of Rule 241A, the pensions are admissible for superior service of number less than 10 years and they are divided into 4 classes, namely, 1 companypensation pension 2 invalid pension 3 superannuation pension and 4 retiring pension.
A. Shah and M.N. Shroff for the Respondent.
268 of 1978 of the said High Court.
3726 of 1984.
The appellant submitted his reply and the proceedings went on before the Government for a companysiderable length of time.
On 1st July 1959 the Bombay Civil Serv ices Rules 1959, hereinafter called the Bombay Rules were promulgated under Art.
Thereafter the appellant was absorbed in the service of the State of Saurashtra.
504 of 1971 for interim relief, which appli cation he withdrew subsequently.
145 of 1978.
Even before he was companypulsorily retired by the Govern ments Order dated 12.10.1961, a departmental enquiry on the ground of slackness of supervision had been initiated on 6.2.1961.
The appellant was companypulsorily retired from service under the above rule by an order passed by the State of Gujarat on 12.10.1961 with effect from 12.1.1962 when he had companypleted the age of 53 years.
Clause c 2 ii 1 of Rule 161 is as follows Except as otherwise provided in this Sub clause, Government servants in the Bombay Service of Engineers, Class 1, must retire on reaching the age of 55 years, and may be required by the Government to retire on reach ing the age of 50 years, if they have attained to the rank of Superintending Engineer.
