RAM KINKAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) By the impugned order dated 19.6.2002, the Appointing Authority/ Assistant Record Officer, Mirzapur has compulsorily retired petitioner working as Peshi Moharrir under Fundamental Rule 56(c) of U.P. Fundamental Rules, Vol. II, Part 2, in public interest making him entitled to three months pay. It is submitted that order does not disclose any reason as to why petitioner shall be retired. Petitioner claims to be medically fit and active in his work. He further stated that no opportunity of hearing or any notice was given to petitioner and that the order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. By an amendment application, allowed by this Court, petitioner has sought to challenge the validity of Fundamental Rule 56(c). Fundamental Rules as arbitrary as against Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The validity of Article 465-A, Note-1, in Civil Service Regulation, 1920 providing for similar provisions for employees of Central Government was upheld by Constitution Bench in Shyam Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 689, in which it was held that there is no such element of charge or imputation in the case of compulsory retirement. The two requirements are that the officer has completed twenty-five years service [20 years under Rule 56(c)] or 50 years of age and that the order has been passed in public interest. On compulsory retirement the Government servant is entitled to pension that he has actually earned and there is no reduction of the accrued benefits. Paragraph 19 of the Judgment, relevant to the present case is quoted as below : "19. The foregoing discussion necessarily, leads us to the conclusion that a compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal or removal and, therefore, does not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution or the Rule 55 and that therefore, the order of the President cannot be challenged on the ground that the appellant had not been afforded full opportunity of showing cause against the action sought to be taken in regard to him. Both the questions under consideration, must also be answered against the appellant."

(3.) Subsequent cases in (1970) 2 SCC 458, Union of India v. J.N. Sinha; AIR 1996 SC 243, State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Das and Ors., have followed the same principle and have established the limited grounds on which an order of compulsory retirement can be challenged.