SUDHIR RANJAN GUHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this Civil Rule was initially an employee under the Assam Bengal Railway Company, appointed prior to 3lst March, 1938. Thai company was taken over by the Government of India with effect from 1st January, 1942. The company underwent several changes of name and at present the petitioner is serving as sub -Head in the Accounts Department under the North -East Frontier Railway at Pandu. He is a confirmed ministerial servant under the Railway. The petitioner's date of birth being 30 -6 -1910, he claims to retire when he attains the age of sixty years on 30 -6 -1970 in accordance with Rule 2046 (F.R. 56) of the Railway Establishment Code. That Rule, as it stands after the last amendment in 1967, may be quoted:

(2.) THE petitioner submits that the second amendment in December, 1967, substituting the Note for the earlier Note is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. He contends that the clause 'the Rule of which had a provision similar to Clause (b) above' in defining 'Government Service' in Rule 2046 discriminates the petitioner, who, although an ex -Railway Company employee, is a Government servant for all purposes, from other Government employees under the Railway and similarly placed. We have, therefore, to examine whether this Note appended to the Rule is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution on the ground urged by the petitioner.

(3.) MR . A.R. Barooah, the learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh : AIR1963SC913 , and drew our attention to the observations at para 23, which we may quote: