RAILWAY BOARD Vs. A PITCHUMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, by special leave, the question that arises for consideration is regarding the validity of the new Note substituted in place of the old Note the December 23, 1967 to cl. (b) of rule 2046 (F. R. 56) of the Indian Railway Fundamental Rules.

(2.) The High Court by its judgment and order, under appeal, dated October 8, 1968 has struck down the new Note as discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) The respondent was originally an employee of the Madras and Southern Mahjratta Railway Company (hereinafter to be referred as the Company) having joined service. On August 16, 1927 as Clerk Grade-I. His date of birth, there is controversy, was April 15, 1910. The Company was amalgamated with the Indian Railway Administration, in the year 1947 and on such amalgamation. the respondent became the employee of the Indian Railway Administration. There is also no controversy that he came within the classification of a "ministerial railway servant" within the meaning of that expression, occurring in rule 2046. Rule 2046 deals with retirement of a railway servant. At the time of amalgamation, under cl. (1) of the siad rule, the date of retirement of Railway servant, other than a ministerial railway servant, other than a ministerial railway servant, was the date on which he attained the age of 55 years. It was also provided therein that the said railway servant, after attaining the age of the retirement, may be retained in service with the sanction of the competent authority on public ground to be recorded in writing. But there was a prohibition regarding retention of such a railway servant after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances. Clause (2) of the said rule, which deals with a ministerial railway servant, under which category the respondent falls at the time of amalgamation was as follows: