the appellant joined service as paid apprentice in the collectorate of etawah government of uttar pradesh on 1st july 1937.
according to the tribu nal the appellant was appointed to the government service on permanent basis to the post of companyyist on 1st of august 1941 and as such he did number companye within the purview of fundamental rule 56 c i .
the appellant claimed that having entered government service on permanent basis before 31st march 1938 he was entitled to companytinue in service till the age of 60 years under fundamental rule 56 c i and his retirement on attaining the age of 58 years was illegal.
joining as paid ap prentice on permanent basis cannumber be anything else but entering government service on permanent basis and since the entry was before 31st march 1938 fundamental rule 56 c i is attracted and the appellant is entitled to remain in government service till the age of 60 years.
the finding of the tribunal that the appellant was made permanent for the first time as companyyist on 1st august 1941 cannumber be accepted in the face of clear entries in the service book showing that he joined as paid apprentice on permanent basis on 1st of july 1937.
on the same day he was asked to officiate in the post of arranger.
the central administrative tribunal principal bench new delhi dis missed the application of the appellant holding that the appellant was only an apprentice under training prior to 1st of august 1941 and as such was number holding any employment under the state on permanent basis.
from the judgment and order dated 20.2.87 of the central administrative tribunal principal bench new delhi in t.a.
while holding the post of paid apprentice he had been ap pointed in various posts on officiating basis.
it is correct that from 1st of july 1937 upto 1st of august 1941 he has been shown in the service book to be appointed in officiating capacity to various posts but the fact remains that his basic appointment as paid apprentice was permanent.
we have examined the admitted entries in the service book of the appellant which are on the record.
fundamental rule 56 c i is reproduced as under a ministerial government servant who entered government service on or before the 31st march 1958 and held on that date a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post or shall retire from service on the afternumbern of the 1st day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1899 of 1989.
he came to the government of india on deputa tion in march 1943 and thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years in february 1976.
number t 322/ 85 cw 293/77 .
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kuldip singh j. the question for our companysideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is governed by funda mental rule 56 c i and as such entitled to superannuation at the age of 60 years.
shankar vaidyalingam and ms.
these entries show that the appellant joined service as paid apprentice on substantive permanent basis on 1st of july 1937.
sushma suri and ms.
dutta govind das mrs.
he was final ly promoted and appointed to a permanent post of companyyist in a substantive capacity on 1st of august 1941.
seita vaidyalingam for the appellant.
he was sent back to the post of paid apprentice on 24th december 1937 but was again appointed as arranger in officiating capacity on 3rd of january 1938.
indra sawhney for the respondents.
