STATE OF M.P. Vs. RAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff had been working as Mechanic in the Government College at Rewa. In 1975, he was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 12.11.1975 of the Director of Collegiate Education in the purported exercise of power under F.R.56 (3). According to the said order, the retirement of the plaintiff was to take effect from the date of the receipt of the said order by him and he was to be paid three months' pay in lieu of notice.

(2.) The representations made by the plaintiff to the authorities concerned of the State Government having failed, he filed a suit for declaration and for Rs. 8522.80 P as arrears of pay till March, 1978 against the State Government and its said authorities in forma pauperis in 1978. The relief of pendente lite pay at the rate of Rs. 344.74P (representing 'Pay' minus 'Pension' being paid to him) was also claimed by him. The suit was resisted by the State Government and other defendants on various grounds stated in their written statement. However, after the evidence was recorded and the parties were heard, the trial Court, vide its judgment dated 21.4.1980, decreed the suit of the plaintiff in full. It is being aggrieved by it that the State Government and other defendants have come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) Now, it was not in dispute between the parties that the date of birth of the plaintiff was 20.2.1924. It was, therefore, clear that he could not be compulsorily retired from service in the purported exercise of power under F.R.56(3) before completion of 55 years of age on 22.2.1979. The order dated 12.11.1975 was liable to be set aside on the said short ground alone. But, then, contrary to what was clearly written in the said order, it was tried to be contended by the State Government and other defendants in their written statement that the compulsory retirement of the plaintiff had been done on completion of 30 years of qualifying service and not on attaining 55 years of age. Though no specific provision was referred to by them in that regard in their written statement it was probably meant by them that the plaintiff was compulsorily retired from service under rule 2(3)(i) of the M.P. Pension Rules, 1955.