BALKRISHAN Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims that he belongs to inferior service as per Schedule-II of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations (CSR) and wants to be retired at the age of 60 years instead of 58 in terms of proviso to Article 226 (1) of CSR. He entered service as Ink Feeder and was then promoted to the post of Distributor and subsequently appointed to the post of Mono Caster. There is no dispute about the posts held by him and that the post of Mono Caster falls in entry 49 of Schedule-II.

(2.) The short controversy is whether the petitioner should have belonged to inferior service before or after 10-10-1966, the crucial date given in proviso to Article 226(1) CSR. Petitioner's case is that since he fell within the bracket of inferior service on the eve of retirement, it is irrelevant whether he belonged to it before or on 10-10-1966. The respondents, however, maintain that he is disentitled to the benefit of extended age of superannuation since he did not belong to inferior service on or before 10-10-1966. It all, therefore, turns on the true interpretation of the relevant proviso which reads thus:

(3.) Article 226(1) of CSR prescribes retirement age of Govt. employees at 58 years. It, however, makes an exception in case of employees belonging to inferior service on 10-10-1966 and figuring in Schedule-II of the CSR and provides that such employees shall retire at 60 years. The question that arises is whether the employee should belong to the inferior service on, before or after 10-10-1966. It is not disputed that the employee is entitled to the benefit if he belongs to the inferior service on or before the crucial date. In my view the controversy is totally misdirected and the interpretation placed by Mr. Anand on the provision is wholly illogical and out of context. If accepted, it will dis-entitle all those employees who may fall within the category of inferior service after 10-10-1966. The provision as such does not admit of any doubt or ambiguity. It is plain and simple and provides that a Government servant must be in service on 10-10-1966 and treated as inferior as per Schedule-II to claim benefit of retirement at 60 years. The emphasis is that he must be in service on the crucial date. The provision does not exclude those employees who enter the bracket after 10-10-1966. It does not intend so. Any other interpretation would lead to absurd and irrational results and would deprive all such employees of the benefit who would come to be within the inferior service after 10.10.1966. I, therefore, hold that benefit of extended age of superannuation is available to even an employee who belongs to inferior service as per Schedule-H even after 10.10.1966.