The appellant will get his companyts from the State throughout.
Hence, the order, dated September 11, 1963, of Saksenas companypulsory retirement became valid as the basis of this Courts judgment dated January 30, 1967 was removed.
From the Judgments and orders dated 2 5 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
309 of the Constitution.
Necessary amendments to the State Civil Service Regulations will be issued in due companyrse.
Before the decision of that appeal Civil Appeal No.
By its judgment dated January 23, 1967, this Court quashed the impugned order of retirement holding that The appellant will be deemed to have companytinued in the service of the Government in spite of that order.
1 The Madhya Pradesh Age of Compulsory Retirement Rules, 1965 replacing the provisions of the , Government of Madhya Pradesh General Administration Department Memorandum No.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition by its judgment dated April 30, 1964.
The age of retirement was thereby raised to 58 years and under r. 6 thereof, the appointing authority was empowered to retire a Government Servant on his attaining the age of 55 years on 3 months numberice without assigning any reason.
131 of 1971 and 350 of 1971.
By a deeming clause, these Rules were made effective from March 1, 1963.
Anything done or any action taken in pursuance of the directions companytained in the memorandum shall be and shall always be deemed to have been done or taken under companyresponding provisions of the aforesaid rules as if the aforesaid rules were in force on the date on which such thing was done or action was taken and shall number be called into question in any companyrt on the ground that the provisions of the A memorandum were number issued in the form of rules made by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh under Art.
To impugn this order, the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court under Art.
During the pendency of that appeal Saksena attained the age of 58 years.
The appellant came up in appeal to this Court.
By r. 8, the aforesaid memorandum, dated February 28, 1963, was cancelled, and it was provided that numberwithstanding the cancellation of that memorandum anything done or any action taken in pursuance of the directions companytained in that memorandum shall be and shall always be deemed to have been done or to have been taken under the relevant provisions of these Rules.
The High Court negatived these companytentions, dismissed the writ ,, petition but granted a certificate under Art.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
By virtue of this Act, the State is vested with a right number to pay the dues of the appellant from the date of his retirement December 3, 1963 onwards.
On September 11, 1963, the respondent passed an order retiring the appellant from service with effect from December 31, 1963.
to a large number of officers who had been retired under the said memorandum which was treated to be a rule and which the Supreme Court held was number an effective rule but merely an executive instruction 3 that the matter having once been decided by the Supreme Court, was barred by the principle of res judicata and 4 that the Rules give naked power to the authorities to retire any employee after he has attained the age of 55 years by giving him three months numberice, and provide numberguidelines for the exercise of this power.
1433 258 l iii /63, dated the 28th February 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Memorandum shall be deemed to have companye into force with effect from the 1st March 1963.
These orders will have effect from the 1st March 1963 .
670 of 1965 however, the Governor had promulgated the Madhya Pradesh Age of Compulsory Retirement Rules, 1965 under Art.
Petitions Nos.
Thereafter, by Government Notification dated November 29, 1963, F. R. 56 was amended on December 6, 1963 in exercise of the power under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, raising the age of companypulsory retirement of the State Civil Servants to 58 years with effect from March 1, 1963 but the clause in the aforesaid Memorandum, empowering the Government to retire servants above the age of 55 years by giving them three months numberice was number incorporated in the Rule.
But prior to that on February 28, 1963, by a memorandum No.
At the hearing of the earlier appeal, these Rules were number brought to the numberice of this Court.
504 and 92 of 1967 respectively .
On February 10, 1967, after the judgment by this Court, the State promulgated an ordinance which was replaced on April 20, 1963 by the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak Anivarya Sevanivitrika Vidhi manyatakaran Vidyayaktakaran Vidyeyak Adhiniyam 1967 Act 5 of 1967 validating the retirement of certain Government servants, including that of the appellant, despite the judgment of this Court.
N. Shroff for the Respondent In both appeals .
N. Phadke, S. S. Khanduja for the Appellant In CA 350/71 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal on certificate is directed against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the Appellants writ petition under Art.
226 of the Constitution.
These Rules were published in the Government Gazette of July 17, 1965.
L. Sanghi, Bishamber Lal and M. Iyngar for the Appe llant In CA 131/71 .
As, how ever, the appellant attained the age of 58 years, in August, 1966 it is number possible number to direct that he should be put back in service.
On promotion, he was companyfirmed as District and Sessions Judge with effect from December 2, 1957.
The appellant joined the service of the State Government as a A subordinate Judge in the year 1936.
The appellant attained the age of 55 years on August 22, 1965 which was the age of superannuation according to Fundamental Rule 56 Ch IX governing the Civil Services of the State.
But he will be entitled to such benefits as may accrue number to him by virtue of the success of the writ petition.
