LALA RAM BHATIA Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was enlisted as a Constable in Delhi in what is termed as Delhi Additional Police on 2-10-1932. He was absorbed in the regular Delhi Police Force on 1-4-1933 and confirmed as Constable (Selection Grade) on 1.5.1936. At present he has been holding a permanent post of Inspector (clerical) since 11.8.1971. About a year after his entering the Delhi Police Force he was posted as Reader to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Kotwali, Delhi on 6.9.1933. It appears from the certificate dated 17.2.1934 (copy of which is annexure 'A' to the petition) that he was working as an English Clerk of the D.S.P. City. The petitioner avers that he was invariably empolyed on duties entirely of clerical in nature. The duties on which he was so employed are mentioned in the History of Services pertaining to him (copy of which is annexure 'B' to the petition). Some time in the year 1950, the office of the Inspector General of Police, Delhi Administration (second respondent) called upon such of the employees of the Delhi Police Force who were deployed on clerical duties either to opt for executive or clerical duties. Since the petitioner was employed on clerical duties and was performing the same he opted for clerical duties giving up his claim for executive duties in the Delhi Police Force. A copy of the declaration, which has been submitted in this connection, is Annexure 'C' to the petition. He had stated therein that he was already employed on clerical duties and would have no claim in the executive. Despite the above an order was issued on 12.6.1968, retiring the petitioner on superannuation pension with effect from8.10.1971 on attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner completed 58 years on 3.10.1971, subsequent to the filing of the present Writ Petition on 20.9.1971.

(2.) The short question for consideration is whether the petitioner is by virtue of F.R. 56 (c) entitled to be retained in Service till he attains the age of 60 years. The argument of Mr. S.S. Chadha, learned counsel for the respondents, was that in construing F.R.56 (c) the definition of 'Ministerial servant' under F.R. 9 (17) should be borne in mind.

(3.) Shri Chadha contends that the petitioner's duties were not entirely ministerial prior to 31.3.1938, but this contention does not derive any support from the language of F.R. 56 (c) itself. The said provision was construed by P.N. Khanna, J. in Lala Ram Vs. Union of India (1969) 0 Delhi Law Times 622) wherein it was pointed out that the only requirement of the said provision was that the person concerned should have entered Government service on or before 31.3.1938, but not that he should be a ministerial servant on or before that date. A. similar view was also taken by Jagjit Singh, J. in Jagan Nath Sharma Vs. (Union of India (1969 S.L.R. 551), wherein stress was laid upon entering Government Service before 31.3.1938 and holding ministerial post at that time entitling the petitioner to the benefit of remaining in Service till he attained the age of 60 years. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of S. K. Kanpur & M. R. A. Ansari, J. held in Shiv Kumar Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway & Am. (1970 S.L.R. 98) that the benefit of retiring on completion of 60 years (under the Indian Railway Establishment, Code Rule 2046 corresponding to F. R. 56) would be available only to those employees who held ministerial post on attaining the age of 58 years. The above-said view was followed by T.V.R. Tatachari. J. in Sartaj Behari Lal Mathur Vs. Union of India, C. W. 1174 of 1969 decided on 4.3.1971, for the purpose of holding that if a Government servant had ceased to be a ministerial Government servant on the date on which he attains the age of 58 years he could not be retained in service beyond the age of 58 years.