The said representation made by the respondent on the basis of the aforesaid order dated April 22, 1977 was rejected by the State Government by order dated September 28, 1977.
The respondent filed an appeal Appeal No.
The order dated April 22, 1977 provided for revocation of the order of premature retirement in respect of employees who had companypleted 20 years qualifying service but had number companypleted 25 years qualifying service and had number attained the age of 50 years on the date of the passing of the order of premature retirement.
The said claim of the respondent was negatived on the view that on the date of passing of the order of premature retirement he had companypleted 25 years qualifying service.
Subsequently, the rule was amended and instead of 20 years qualifying service, the requirement of 25 years qualifying service was substituted.
1660 of 1982 which was dismissed by a division bench of the High Court by order dated February 6, 1991.
The respondent submitted a representation claiming that he was entitled to the benefit of the order dated April 22, 1977 for the reason that though he had companypleted 20 years qualifying service on October 22,1975, the date of passing of the order of premature retirement, he had number companypleted 25 years qualifying service on the date and the order of companypulsory retirement dated October 22, 1975 was therefore liable to be revoked.
151 of 1979 filed against the said judgment of the learned single Judge was also dismissed by a division bench of the High Court on December 10, 1979.
748/77 against the said order before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
This second round of litigation relates to the reconsideration of the case of the respondent on the basis of the circular of the State Government dated March 24, 1977.
The said order of companypulsory retirement was passed under Sub rule 2 of Rule 244 of Rajasthan Service Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules on the basis that the respondent had companypleted 20 years qualifying service.
At that time, the said rule provided for companypulsory retirement of a Government servant on his attaining the age of 50 years or on his companypletion of 20 years qualifying service.
795 of 1979 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated October 26,1979.
By the said circular,it was directed as under The memorandum dated July 9, 1976 whereby the provision for reconsideration by Review Committee of the cases of employees who had been prematurely retired under Rule 244 2 of the Rules was revoked, had been withdrawn by memorandum dated March 10, 1977, and as a result the employees who had been companypulsorily retired after June 24, 1976 companyld submit representation for companysideration of the Review Committee.
On March 24,1977, the Government of Rajasthan issued a circular providing for reconsideration of orders of premature retirement passed under Rule 244 2 .
As numbericed earlier, the State Government had issued two orders, one dated March 24,1977 and the other dated April 22, 1977 relating to persons who had been prematurely retired in exercise of powers companyferred by Sub rule 2 of Rule 244 of the Rules.
By another order dated April 22, 1977, it was directed that the Government had decided that those Government servants who had been retired on companypletion of 20 years qualifying service or more but less than 25 years qualifying service and had number attained the age of 50 years at the time of their retirement under Rule 244 2 shall be taken back in Government service and such orders of retirement issued by authorities companypetent to retire such Government servants under Sub rule 2 of Rule 244 shall be revoked.
The respondent filed an appeal No.
4373 of 1980 against the order of the division bench of the High Court but the same was also dismissed on April 28, 1980.
In the earlier proceedings which culminated in the dismissal of the special leave petition of the respondent by this Court, the respondent had invoked the protection of the order dated April 22, 1977 on the ground that on the date of the passing of the order of premature retirement, he had number companypleted 25 years qualifying service and he had number attained the age of 50 years.
Special Appeal No.
The present appeal is directed against the said decision of the High Court.
393/1981 before the Tribunal against the said order dated April 4,1981, which was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated January 22/29, 1982 and the order dated April 4, 1981 as well as the order of companypulsory retirement dated October 22, 1975, were quashed by the Tribunal and the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service retrospectively with all companysequential benefits.
On August 31, 1961, he was selected for appointment to the Rajasthan Administrative Service and while he was thus serving, the State Government, by order dated October 22,1975, companypulsorily retired him from service.
It appears that the respondent had also submitted representation for reconsideration of his case on the basis of the circular dated March 24, 1977.
The scope of enquiry before the Tribunal was to examine whether the respondent fulfilled the said companyditions and whether in spite of fulfilling those companyditions he was erroneously denied relief by authorities.
The last of such representations dated January 2,1981 was rejected by order dated April 4,1981.
The said appeal of the respondent was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated February 12, 1979 on the view that on the date of the passing of the order of companypulsory retirement, the respondent had companypleted 25 years qualifying service.
The said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the respondent before the Rajasthan High Court by filing a writ petition No.
He was appointed in a temporary capacity for a period of three months but he companytinued on the said post till November 4,1950 when he was appointed on the post of Food Assistant in the said department after being duly selected by the Public Service Commission.
The respondent moved this Court by way of special leave petition No.
The said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant State before the High Court by filing a writ petition No.
The order dated March 24, 1977 made provision for reconsideration of the cases of persons who had been prematurely retired under the said rule.
Shri Shiv Lahari Sharma, the respondent herein, joined as Plant Protection Supervisor in the Agricultural Department of the State of Rajasthan on July 18, 1950.
The respondent appeared in person and made his submission.
C. Agrawal, J. Special leave granted.
Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.
