NANAK SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Nanak Singh, has filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to forebear from giving effect to their order to retire the petitioner with. effect from 24-4-1968, and further directing them to retain the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60 years, or for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid impugned order.

(2.) The petitioner was bom on 24-4-1910. He was appointed as a Clerk, Grade II, in the Audit Department of the Northern Western Railway on 4-8-1927. Later, the Audit & Accounts Departments were separated, and as a consequence thereof he was transferred to the Accounts Department of the aforesaid Railway. He was confirmed as Clerk, Grade II, provisionally on 1-4-1930, and finally on 30-12-1930. Thereafter, he passed the prescribed Departmental examination of the Accounts Department in November, 1943, and he was promoted to the post of Junior Inspector of Station Accounts in June, 1944. Subsequently, on 24-12-1958 he was promoted, to the post of Senior Inspector of Station Accounts, and later he was confirmed in the said post with effect from. 21-3-1960 in the grade of Rs. 435-20-575. While he was working as Senior Inspector of Station Accounts, Traffic Accounts Department, Northern Railway, Delhi- Kishanganj, Delhi, the General Manager, Northern Railway, published in the Northern Railway Gazette on 16-11-1967 an announcement (Annexure 'A') to the effect that the petitioner would be retired from service with effect from 20-4-1968 i.e. on his attaining the age of 58 years Thereupon, the petitioner claiming that he was a ministerial servant, and that having entered service prior to the year 1938, was entitled to remain in service till he attained the age of 60 years as per Cl. (2) (b) of Rule 2046 (F. R. 56) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II, filed the present writ petition praying for the reliefs already set out above.

(3.) The Rule 2046 (2) relied upon by the petitioner reads as under: