MUSADDI LAL AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a member of the Higher Judicial Service, Uttar Pradesh and was confirmed as a District Judge with effect from 4-11-1969 by an order dated 19-3-1975. He was selected to hold the post of Judicial Member of the Uttar Pradesh public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) and he took over on 2-8-1976. His appointment was notified on 30-9-1976. The petitioner's date of birth is 13- 6-1919 and he completed 58 years of age on 13-6-1977. He continued to hold the charge of his post as a member of the Tribunal till 1-7-1977 when he was asked by the Chairman of the Tribunal that he should not hold court as the Government had issued directions to that effect. In other words, the petitioner was tirected not to function in his post as a member of the Tribunal since he had attained the age of 58 years, consequently from 1-7- 1977 the petitioner ceased to hold court, though according to the averments in the writ petition he continued to attend the Tribunal regularly till 11-7-1977. Of course, no written order was communicated to him nor has any such order been filed by the respondent, nevertheless the allegations are not controverted. Aggrieved by this order of the Government the petitioner has filed this writ petition and prayed, inter alia, that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued to command the respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh, to let the petitioner continue on the post of member, Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal till he attains the age of 61 years, as required under the provisions of sub-s. (5) of S. 3, Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is the interpretation of sub- s. (5) of S. 3 of the Act. The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (Act No. 17 of 1976) was enacted in order to provide for the constitution of Tribunals to adjudicate the disputes of public servants or the employees of the State. The terms and conditions of employment of the Chairman and the members of the Tribunal were to be governed by S. 3 of the Act which reads :

(3.) The petitioner's contention, in short, was that by virtue of sub-s. (5), of S. 3 of the Act a person who had been appointed a member of the Tribunal had a right to continue to hold the office as such member until he attained the age of 61 years. Accordingly he claimed his right to continue to hold the office as a member of the Tribunal till he attained the age of 61 years. The petitioner strongly relied on the terms of the order of appointment issued to him. It is manifest that the appointment was unconditional. This position, namely, the unqualified appointment of the petitioner was not denied but the contention of the respondent was that even after being appointed a Judicial Member of the Tribunal the petitioner did not cease to be a member of the Higher Judicial Service and so he continued to be governed by the age of superannuation laid down in Fundamental Rule 56 (a) of the Financial Hand book, Volume II, Parts II to IV framed by the State Government. According to that Rule the age of superannuation is 58 years. The Rule runs thus :