PARMESHWAR DAYAL PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Parmeshwar Dayal Pandey, entered Government service as Sub -Inspector of Police in the Central Provinces and Berar on 1st January 1950. The Central Provinces and Berar became the State of Madhya Pradesh (old) after coming into force of the Constitution on 26th January 1950. The petitioner continued in service in the State of Madhya Pradesh (old). The present State of Madhya Pradesh was formed on 1st November 1956 under section 9 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956. This new State comprises of the territories of the erstwhile States of Madhya Pradesh (except eight districts which were included in the State of Bombay) Madhya Bharat, Bhopal, Vindhya Pradesh and Sironj Sub -Division of Kota District of State of Rajasthan. The petitioner continued in service in the new State. The petitioner was promoted in 1964 as Circle Inspector. On 18th Mach 1975, the Inspector General of police (I.G.P.) passed an order compulsorily retiring the petitioner on the basis of his service record as he had completed twenty -five years of qualifying service under Rule 2 (3) (i) of the New Pension Rules, 1951. This order of compulsory retirement was withdrawn on 28th March 1975. However, by another order passed on 19th July 1975, the I.G.P. again ordered compulsory retirement of the petitioner under Rule 2 (3) (i) in the public interest with effect from the receipt of the order. The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the I.G.P. compulsorily retiring him from service.

(2.) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of compulsory retirement contravenes the proviso to section 11 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act, as it was passed under a rule which varies the conditions of service of the petitioner to his disadvantage without the previous approval of the Central Government as required by the proviso.

(3.) IT will be noticed that the original Rule 2 (3) (i) of the New Pension Rules empowered the Government to retire a Government servantion the ground of inefficiency after a qualifying service of twenty -five years. The new Rule 2 (3) (ii) substituted by notification dated 7th June 1966 enabled the authority competent to retire a Government servant to retire him in the public interest after twenty -five years of qualifying service. The power to retire in the public interest conferred by the new Rule 2 (3) (ii) was wider than the power conferred by the original rule as the same could be used only in case of inefficiency. The new Rule 2 (3) (ii) was thus disadvantageous to those Government servants who were previously governed by the original Rule 2 (3) (ii). Under the proviso to section 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act, the new State could not vary the conditions of service of the Government servants who came from the constituent units to their disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. The State Government, therefore, obtained the concurrence of the Central Government before substituting the new Rule 2 (3) (ii) for the old rule by notification dated 7th June 1966. This Notification states that the amendment in the Rules was made in consultation with the Central Government under section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act. The use of the word "consultation" has given rise to the argument that approval or concurrence of the Central Government was not obtained as required by the proviso to section 115 (7) and consultation was not enough for substituting the new rule. The learned Government Advocate has placed before us the relevant file which shows that the new Rule 2 (3) (ii) was substituted with the concurrence of the Central Government communicated to the State Government by letter dated 18th May 1969. A copy of this letter has also been filed along with un affidavit of the Assistant Inspector General of Police. The argument based on the use of the word "consultation" thus loses all force when it is found as a fact that the new Rule 2 (3) (ii) was substituted with the concurrence of the Central Government.