R C PATIL Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged in this Writ Petition the order of the State Government dated 15-9-1972 Ext. A retiring the petitioner from service under Not" 1 to Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules. The impugned order describes the petitioner as one holding the post of II Grade Revenue Inspector Ranebennur Taluk Dharwar District.

(2.) Shri R. C. Goulay learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the conditions' prescribed under Note 1 to Rule 285 do not exist in this case the State Government could not have exercised the power to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service under the said provision-Rule 285 provides that a retiring pension is granted to a Government servant who is permitted to retire after completing qualifying service for thirty years or such legs- time as may for any special class of Government servants be prescribed Note 1 to the said Rule which is relevant for the purpose of this case may be extracted as .follows:-

(3.) No statement of objections have been filed on behalf of the respondents State Government and the Deputy Commissioner Dharwar. The petitioner has stated that his date of birth as entered in the Services Registrar is 17-5-1924. As that statement is not controvered it is clear thai the petitioner had not completed 50 years of age on the date on which the impugned order was made. The question that arises for consideration therefore is as to whether the other condition regarding qualifying service is satisfied in this case. The Rule requires that the Government servant should have completed 25 years of qualifying service before action could be taken under Note 1 to Rule 285. The petitioner has in paragraph 5 of the affidavit given some details of his service as follows:-