NAVNIT LAL MANILAL BHAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Certificate against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dismissing the plaintiff's writ petition questioning the order of the Divisional Superintendent of Western Railway directing him to retire on his attaining the age of 55 could be disposed of on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Railway Board v. A. Pitchumani, AIR 1972 SC 508. The facts necessary for disposing of this appeal may be shortly stated.

(2.) The appellant entered the service of the B.B. and C. I. Railway on 30-11-1929 as a probationary Assistant Booking Clerk. On 1-1-1942 this Railway was taken over by the Central Government. At that time the appellant executed a service agreement which, among other things, preserved for him the leave privileges he was entitled to while serving under the Company. The age of retirement under the Company was 55 years as indeed it was for Government servants also. This age of retirement was made a specific clause of the agreement. On 5-12-62 the age of retirement of all Railway servants, without any distinction, was raised to 58. On 26-4-1963 the Railway Board issued a circular on the question of application of age of retirement under Rule 2046 of the Railway Establishment Code. On the basis of this circular the appellant was asked to retire on attaining the age of 55, as mentioned earlier. Before the High Court this circular of 26-4-1963 was urged as being a Rule made by the President and accepting this contention the High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition.

(3.) The facts of the case in the decision of this Court, earlier referred to, are exactly the same. There also the Railway servant concerned had originally entered the service with the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company. The subsequent history was also the same. The Rule which fell to be considered was also the same rule as amended on 5-12-1962. A subsequent amendment of that Rule which took away the benefit conferred on ex-company employees, as in the present case, was held to be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, and was struck down. It is unnecessary to quote at length from that judgment.