HORACE ROSS Vs. STATE GOVT OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for suitable writs or directions (i) to quash a notice dated 20 March 1959 (Annexure-B) intimating to the petitioner that he would be retired from service on the expiry of three months from the date of its receipt, (ii) to require the respondents to postpone the date of retirement so as enable the petitioner to enjoy the earned leave due to him and also (iii) to direct the State of Madhya Pradesh (respondent 1) to place fully and correctly before the Central Government all facts relating to the leave due to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was promoted from the State Police Service to the Indian Police Service, on which, post he was subsequently confirmed. At the material time, he had completed more than 30 years of qualifying service. On 20-31959, the Government of Madhya Pradesh (respondent 1) served on the petitioner a notice (Annexure B) under Rule 17 (2) of the All India Services (Deathcum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, intimating to him that he would be retired from Service on the expiry of 8 months from the date of its service. The petitioner made a representation (Annexure C) and requested that he should be granted all the leave due to him preparatory to his retirement. The petitioner was telegraphically intimated that leave preparatory to retirement was sanctioned subject to admissibility and that it might be availed of immediately. However, the formal order (Annexure B) dated 2-5-1959 limited the leave to only 64 days commencing from 19 April 1959 and ending on a date coinciding with the date already fixed for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner's case, briefly stated, is this. On 20-3-1959, he had to his credit at least 620 days of earned leave. This, accumulated leave constituted his property since it enabled him to enjoy as of right 120 days of the leave on full pay and the remaining leave on half pay prior to his retirement with consequent increase in the amount of pension) admissible to him. Secondly, the petitioner was not governed by the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, which were recently framed. In any event, since these Rules entitled the State Government to act unjustly, they were void and inoperative. Thirdly, the compulsory retirement of the petitioner originated in some complaint made against him which he had no opportunity of meeting before it was acted upon to his prejudice. That being so, the order of compulsory retirement was not a lawful order. Finally, the assent of the Central Government to the compulsory retirement of the petitioner was obtained by suppressing the fact that he had more than 620 days of accumulated earned leave to his credit.