K R TAHILIANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that must be considered in this petition of a former civil servant is as to whether he could be legitimately retired compulsorily under Rule 56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules (for short, the rule), on attaming the age of 50 years. The other questions raised by the petitioner do not survive at present in view of the claim of privilege set up on behalf of the Union.

(2.) On March 5, 1949 the petitioner joined government service. On December 11, 1974 he attained the age of fifty years. On July 17, 1975 the Engineer-in-Chief made an order (Annexure 1) to the effect that the petitioner, having attained the age of fifty years, shall retire from service. The impugned order was made in purported exercise of the powers conferred by the Rule on the ground that it was in public interest to retire the petitioner. On the date of the order the petitioner held in a substantive capacity the post of Section Officer (Civil), formerly known as Junior Engineer, a class III post, but had, since May 20, 1968, been working as Assistant Engineer, a class II post, in an officiating capacity to which he had been appointed on, an ad hoc basis. K.R. THILIANI Vs.UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

(3.) The petitioner assailed the impugned order on a number of grounds set out in the petition alleging, inter alia, that the order was neither based on any application of mind nor otherwise supported by any material, which may be' said to be germane to the question of compulsory retirement. The impugned order was sought to be justified, inter alia, on the ground that the service record of the petitioner was throughout "generally poor" and the premature retirement was, therefore, in public interest. The challenge to the validity of the order was sought to be supported with reference to the service record of the petitioner, but the challenge could not fructify because the material part of the service record was sought to be protected from compulsory disclosure by a claim of privilege. The daim of privilege was, however. disallowed but the operation of the order, disallowing the claim, was 'stayed by a Division Bench of this Court in an apeal against the order rejecting the claim. The appeal is still pending. The challenge was, therefore, confined to the ground that the petitioner, having held a class III post substantively and having, therefore, never been "in class I or class II service or post" the Rule could not be invoked and the question whether the petitioner should be retired prematurely could be legitimately considered only under Rule 56(j)(ii) after the petitioner had attained the age of 55 years.