The judgment of the Full Bench was pronounced on September 26, 1969.
The Division Bench referred all the three matters to a Full Bench to companysider two specific questions of law, namely i whether under Fundamental Rule 56 the age of superannuation was 55 or 58 years and ii whether the proviso to clause a of Fundamental Rule 56 violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The ordinance was replaced by U.P. Act No.
5 of 1970 on April 1, 1970.
Thereafter the Writ Petititon was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and it came to be dismissed on February 23, 1970.
The question relating to the validity of Fundamental Rule 56 was involved in two other cases which were pending before the High Court The Writ Petition filed by the appellant and the other two writ petitions were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court.
Immediately thereafter the Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued an ordinance dated November 5, 1969 making amendments to Fundamental Rule 56 and validating actions already taken there under.
After the Administrative Committee had expressed its opinion the matter was number again referred to the Governor at all.
1243 of 1972 From the Judgment and Decree dated 23.2.1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
This appeal by certificate is filed against the judgment of the High Court.
It was only on August 27, 1968 the order of the Governor was placed before the Administrative Committee of the High Court when it gave its approval to the opinion of the Administrative Judge earlier companymunicated to the State Government.
It was actually served on September 3, 1968.
3958 of 1968 before the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution urging inter alia i that the retirement of the appellant as per order dated August 24, 1968 had been ordered without the recommendation of the High Court as required by Article 235 of the Constitution, that Fundamental Rule 56 under which the impugned order had been issued was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and iii that the appellants premature retirement was in violation of Article 311 2 of the Constitution.
On July 8, 1968 the Administrative Judge agreed with the proposal of the State Government to retire the appellant prematurely after giving him three months numberice.
After the Administrative Committee had approved the opinion of the Administrative Judge the order of retirement was served on the appellant on September 3, 1968.
Three days there after, on August 27, 1968 the Administrative Committee of the High Court gave its approval to the recommendation of the Administrative Judge earlier companymunicated to the State Government.
The appellant sought the amendment of the Writ Petition questioning the validity of the ordinance and the Act.
Thereafter the Full Bench heard all the three cases and answered the two questions as follows i Under clause a of Fundamental Rule 56 the age of superannuation was 58 years and ii Paragraph i of the proviso to clause a of the Fundamental Rule 56 violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Thereafter on August 30, 1968 the Additional Registrar transmitted the order of retirement to the appellant.
Aggrieved by the said numberice of premature retirement, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
But on September 3, 1968 the appellant was served with an order dated August 24, 1968 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh Home Department stating that the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of the powers under para i of the first proviso to clause a of Fundamental Rule 56 companytained in the Financial Hand Book, Volume II, Parts II to IV, as amended from time to time, had been pleased to order that the appellant should retire from service on the expiry of three months from the date of service of the numberice.
The Governor passed the order of retirement on August 24, 1968.
He would have retired from service on the expiry of March 31, 1971 on companypleting 58 years of age.
3958 of 1968.
His date of birth was April 1, 1913.
Gopal Subramaniam and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Res pondents.
M. Ashri, Ramesh Kumar Khanna, R.A. Mishra and N.Sharma for the Appellant.
The State Government moved the High Court in the year 1967 for the premature retirement of the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant was working as an Addi tional District and Sessions Judge in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1968.
