BANSIDHAR JATASHANKAR ACHARYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed in the respondent Cantonment Board as Teacher and he attained the age of 58 on 31. 5. 1998. Until then, the law governing retirement was that an employee of the Cantonment Board will retire at the age of 58 and in that connection, Rule 22 was the government Rules. Rule 22 reads as under:

(3.) HE has drawn our attention to this notification and in this notification, the age of retirement has been raised to 60. The case of the petitioner is that vide communication, the Government of India communicated to all concerned that those who have to retire on 31. 5. 1998, their retirement should be kept in abeyance until the Rules are finalized. However, the petitioner was retired on 31. 5. 1998 because the letter asking for keeping the retirement in abeyance is issued on 5. 6. 1998. This communication is administrative in character and is post date of retirement. The entire case of the petitioner is based on this communication and according to the petitioner, he should not have retired on 31. 5. 1998, because there was a communication available. We have given thoughtful consideration to the petitioner. On 31. 5. 1998, when the petitioner was retired, Rule 22 was in force and therefore, the authorities were required to consider his case in terms of the existing Rules. On that date, the communication as referred on 5. 6. 1998 was not in existence, therefore, the authorities could not have strayed their hands, and retained the petitioner in service and restrained from retiring him. Furthermore, the Rules which have come in 2000 have made a provision in clause -2 that they should come into force on the date of their final publication in the official gazette in 2000. If Rule 22 is substituted by another Rule, which comes into operation in 2000, then that Rule cannot be said to be retrospective and in that view of the matter, the retirement cannot be said to be made the subject matter of an administrative letter because it was financial implication and those civil consequences have to be governed only by Rules. There being no Rules extending the age until 2000, it cannot be said that the authorities were wrong in retiring the petitioner on 31. 5. 1998 because then as the law stood, the petitioner was liable to be retired on 31. 5. 1998 only. The communication as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner dated 5. 6. 1998 cannot have the effect of law and the law which have come to rule on communication has been made effective only from 2000. That being the position, we do not find any law extending the age of retirement because it requires a statutory sanction to give additional right of retirement from 58 to 60. That being the position, there being no statutory sanction in extension, only an administrative instruction in the form of letter cannot take place a character of law.