SHYAM BEHARILAL BHATNAGAR Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO points have been urged in support of this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby it has been prayed that it may be declared that the petitioner was wrongly retired on the completion of age of 55 years and that he has also been wrongly fixed in Class 'C' Municipal Service.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner had attained the age of 55 years on 24 -6 -68. The petitioner's contention is that he could not have been retired before the attained the age of 60 years. This contention is based on the ground that the petitioner was initially appointed in the erstwhile Gwalior State and was consequently governed by the Gwalior State Civil Service Rules. It is submitted that under Sec. 2, Para 10 of Sub -Sec. 2 of the said Rules, the superannuation age prescribed for Government servants like the petitioner was 60 years, To fortify this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a Bench decision of this Court in Narain Prasad Bhatnagr v. State of M. P., MP No. 200 of 1971, decided on 12 -10 -72

(3.) IN Caltex (India) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Sales -Tax (supra) it was held that where the mistake of law could be discovered by a ruling of the Madras High Court and also by the later rulings of the Supreme Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the petitioner in Madhya Pradesh could treat the date of the decision of the Supreme Court or the Madhya Pradesh High Court as the date of knowledge. In our opinion, the ratio of this decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Before the decision in Narain Prasad's case (supra) there is nothing to show that the law laid down by this Court or by any other competent Court was that the superannuation age of the petitioner would be 55 years and not 60 years. There was no question of the petitioner being misled on this point, and he could have filed a civil suit within limitation or could have moved this court for issuance of a direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. within the limitation prescribed for a suit.