UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to appreciate the points arising in L. P. A. No. 107 of 1951, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail.

(2.) Jai Ram plaintiff entered the service of the Government of India on the 7th of May, 1912. Jai Ram plaintiff reached the age of 55 years on the 26th of November, 1946, but it is common ground that the date of his retirement was governed by Fundamental Rule 56(b) (i), Chapter IX of the Fundamental Rules, according to which a ministerial servant should ordinarily be retained in service if he continues efficient up to the age of 60 years.

(3.) On the 7th of May, 1945, Jai Ram wrote letter, Exhibit D-1, to the Director of the Central Research Institute at Kasauli that having completed 33 years' service on the 6th of May, 1945, he should be permitted to retire and allowed to take whatever leave was admissible to him. On the 18th of May, 1945, Mr. H. W. Mulligan, presumably Director of the Institute, passed orders to the effect that Jai Ram who had 21/2 months' leave recently could not be spared. On the 30th of May, 1945, Jai Rais wrote letter, Exhibit D-2, that owing to the death of his brother, his private circumstances did not permit of his serving in the Institute any longer. In that letter Jai Ram applied for leave preparatory to retirement, four months' leave on average pay and the rest on half average pay with effect from the 1st of June, 1945, or the date of availing to the date of superannuation, namely, the 26th of November, 1946. On this letter Mr. Mulligan ordered on the 31st of May, 1945, that Jai Ram could not be spared.