MUNAKALA APPANNA REDDY Vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the interpretation of his appointment order, put by the Government, which affects him adversely as to the date on which he will be required to retire from service. It is not denied that under the Fundamental Rules, if the petitioner has entered the Government service on or before 31-3-1938 and held on that date a lien or suspended lien on a permanent post or (ii) a permanent post in a provisionally substantive capacity, under Cl. (d) of R. 14 and continued to hold the same without interruption until he is confirmed in that post, he is entitled to be retained in service till he attains the age of 60 years. Otherwise, he will be required to retire, under the revised rules, on reaching the age of 58 years.

(2.) The petitioner is a ministerial servant in the Vizagapatam Port Trust, having entered service in 1930. His date of birth is 16-12-1907, and he would have retired at the age of 55 years before the revision of the rules, on 16-1 2-1962. It is stated that the Auditor-General of India sanctioned 28 permanent posts as from 18-8-1937, and the Accountant-General, by his letter dated 30-9-1937, directed discharge of the excess of temporary posts over those 28 permanent posts that were created. Subsequently, on 29-4-1938, the Audit Officer of the Port Trust, by virtue of the powers delegated to him, confirmed the petitioner and others in those 28 posts and it is the Governments case that they were made permanent as from that date, viz. 25-4-1938. It so, it is not denied that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the rule which enhanced the retirement age to 60. The Fundamental Rule is clear; and it needs only to find out as to when the petitioner acquired a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post.

(3.) It may be stated that a person would have a lien on his post if he is appointed to the post permanently, or if he is confirmed in a permanent post; vide F. R. 9 (13). The question, therefore, is whether the petitioner was appointed permanently before 31-3-1938. The petitioner relies on the following letters of the Auditor-General. In letter No. 961-NGE/8/37, dated 13-8-1937, the Auditor-General of India intimated to the Accountant-General, Madras, that under R. 70 in Part II of the Book of Financial Powers, the Auditor-General sanctioned the creation of certain permanent posts, specified therein, on the scales of pay noted against each, in lieu of the existing temporary posts which were also specified therein. In this letter, permanent posts of 7 lower Division Clerks on the scale of pay of Rs. 40-40-2-80 were created in lieu of abolition of 4 temporary clerks, one of whom was in the scale of pay Rs. 28-4-80 and the three others on Rs. 50-4-70. Later, on 6-1-1938, by letter No. 4/NGE/8/37 the Auditor-General replied to the Accountant-General to his letter, dated 2-12-1937, conveying sanction of the Auditor-General to the continuance from 1-3-1937 to 12-9-1937 of the temporary posts for the office of the Audit Officer, Vizagapatam Harbour Construction, which were abolished on the creation of permanent posts in Auditor-Generals letter No. T. 961-NGE/8-37, dated 18-8-1937, and also intimating him that the sanction contained in his letter of 18-8-1937 be given effect to from 13-9-1937 instead of from 18-8-1937, the date of the Auditor-Generals letter.