KANHAIYA LAL GARG Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10. 09. 1999, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging an order of the Rajasthan civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to as `the Tribunal') dated 11. 05. 1999 whereby the Tribunal had dismissed an application filed by the appellant before it challenging an order dated 18. 06. 1996 whereby the appellant had been compulsorily retired.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the appellant was working in the Revenue Department of the Government of Rajasthan on the post of Patwari at the relevant time. The appellant was compulsorily retired from service vide order dated 18. 06. 1996 under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Rule 24492) of the Rajasthan Services Rules is reproduced as under: " 244 (2) The Government may, after giving him at least three months' previous notice in writing require a government servant to retire from the service on the date on which he completes 25 years of qualifying service or attains the age of 55 years or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice: Provided that a government servant of Class IV can only be required to retire on the date on which he completes 25 years of qualifying service or any date thereafter. " The order of compulsory retirement was challenge by the appellant before the Tribunal amongst others, on the ground that by a circular dated 22. 08. 1990 the Government had decided to use Rule 244 (2) only with respect to gazetted officers and the appellant being a non-gazetted employee, the said Rule could not be invoked in his case. The appellant further relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ratan Lal Bohra vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1) wherein it was held that in view o the said circular dated 22. 08. 1990 (Annex. 7) Rule 244 (2) could not be invoked in case of non-gazetted employees of the (Annex. 8) and keeping the said circular in view the Tribunal held the State under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The Tribunal observed that the circular dated 29. 05. 1995 was never brought to the notice of the Supreme Court and, therefore, the decision in Ratan Lal Bohra's case based on the circular dated 22. 08. 1990 could not be applied in case of the appellant. The order of compulsory retirement in case of the appellant was passed on 18. 06. 1996 i. e. after the circular dated 29. 05. 1995 had come into force. Therefore, the said order would be governed by the later circular. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the application filed by the appellant under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976. The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant by way of writ petition filed in this Court. The learned Single Judge agreed with the decision of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition holding that Ratan Lal Bohra's case (supra) was not applicable in the facts of the present case.

(3.) BEFORE parting with the impugned we may note another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It was submitted that the same learned Single Judge had allowed another writ petition being titled Heeralal vs. State of Rajasthan (2), vide order dated 4. 07. 1998 and had quashed the order of compulsory retirement on the ground that Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service rules could not be invoked because the petitioner in that case was also a non- gazetted employee of the State Government. Therefore, it was argued that the same learned Judge could not take a different view in case of the appellant and dismiss his petition. In this respect we have only to observe that a Judge can always correct himself by way of a subsequent judgment. Secondly, as a matter of fact it is to be noted that the circular dated 29. 05. 1995 was never brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when Heeralal's case was decided by him. Therefore, the learned Single Judge simply followed Ratanlal Bohra's case decided by the Supreme court to which reference has already been made and allowed the petition. In the present case the matter was examined in detail and all relevant facts were placed before the Court. Therefore, a different view emerged which we hereby uphold.