GYANENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order of compulsory retirement. Only argument on which learned senior counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent-State compulsory retiring petitioner vide order dated 20/5/2000 is that petitioner had not completed requisite 25 years of service as per the provisions then applicable i.e. Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short the "Rules of 1996"), which was amended w.e.f. 5/7/2000 reducing the minimum qualifying period of service from 25 to 15 years. Petitioner was appointed on 26/12/1975 and the order of his compulsory retirement has been passed on 20/5/2000. Petitioner had not completed 25 years of service on that date. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on the division bench judgment of this Court in Gajendra Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.727/2003 dated 20/01/2011 and on that basis, subsequent judgment dated 28/01/2013 passed by the single bench of this Court in Bhagirath Charan v. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4271/2000 , which too has been upheld by the division bench lateron in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.687/2013 : The State of Rajasthan v. Bhagirath Charan vide judgment dated 26/7/2013 and argued that the order of compulsory retirement passed earlier than 25 years of the qualifying period of service on the strength of amended Rule 53 of the Rules of 1996, was declared illegal holding the petitioner entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Shri Neeraj Kumar Bhatt, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and argued that not only the petitioner was required to have completed the qualifying period of service of 25 years but also 50 years of age, whichever is earlier, on which he could be compulsorily retired. He further argued that the amendment notification was issued on 1/12/1999, which date would fall in any case before the date on which compulsory retirement order was passed in the case of the petitioner, and, therefore in this case, the order of compulsory retirement was validly passed.

(3.) This very issue was debated before the division bench and it was held that even though the amendment notification was issued on 1/12/1999 reducing the age of compulsory retirement from 25 to 15 years but that notification was published in the extraordinary gazette on 5/7/2000, amendment would therefore be enforceable from the date of publication of the extraordinary gazette. Since the amendment came into force w.e.f. 5/7/2000, whereas the order of compulsory retirement in the present case was passed on 20/5/2000, and the unamended rules then in force required service of 25 years as qualifying period of service for compulsory retirement, therefore the order of compulsory retirement cannot be sustained. Moreover, petitioner was barely 43 years old at that time, therefore, also, he could not be retired compulsorily. The co-ordinate bench has also on the same analogy quashed the order of compulsory retirement. The division bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.687/2013 again reiterated the same view, which was expressed earlier.