RAM NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the State Government on 3rd January 1963 in the exercise of its powers under rule 2 (3), clause (ii) of the Madhya Pradesh New Pension Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the New Pension Rules). retiring him from service with effect from the forenoon of 10th February 1963. The petitioner presented a representation to the Governor against the order of the State Government which was rejected. A writ of certiorari is also sought for quashing the order rejecting the representation.

(2.) AT the time of retirement the petitioner was officiating as District Excise Officer, Shivpuri, and had completed more then 30 years' qualifying superior service. These facts are not disputed in the return filed on behalf of the opponent -State. The in punned order of retirement made under rule 2 (3) (ii) of the New Pension Rules stated that the petitioner had completed a qualifying superior service of 25 years under the State Government and that the Government was satisfied that the applicant was inefficient and it would be in the public interest to required him to retire compulsorily. At the material time the age of superannuation fixed by Fundamental Rule 56 applicable to the petitioner was 55 years. Rule 2 of the New Pension Rules framed by the State Government in the exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of of India, so far as it is material here, runs as follows:

(3.) THE argument that was strenuously pressed before us by Shri Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was that sub -rules (2) and (3) (ii) of the New Pension Rules were mutually exclusive; and that, therefore, the Government could not exercise its powers under sub -rules (2) and (3) (ii) of requiring a Government servant to retire on the ground of inefficiency in the case of a Government servant who had completed 30 years' qualifying superior service. In our judgment, this contention must be given effect to. It is plain from the language of sub -rules (2) and (3) that they deal with the question of retirement of Government servants falling in two different categories. Sub -rule (2) first gives to a Government servant an absolute option to retire from service at any time after completing 30 years' qualifying superior service. Such a person can claim retirement after giving to that effect a notice in writing to the appropriate authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. The rule then proceeds to the Government also the power to require a Government servant to retire at any time after he has completed 30 years' qualifying superior service provided the appropriate authority gives a notice in writing to the Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire. It must be noted that the power of the Government to require a Government servant to retire under sub -rule (2) is not conditioned by such circumstances as inefficiency of the Government servant, or interest of Government, or administrative convenience. If a Government servant has completed 30 years' qualifying superior service, then the Government can retire him for any reason after giving the prescribed notice.