STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GANPAT SINGH BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Ganpat Singh Bhandari who was Vice Principal of M. L. V. Government College, Bhilwara was retired under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, hereinafter called as 'the Rules', by the State Government by order dated 13/14th November, 1975 on his attaining the age of fifty years. The respondent challenged this order by an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Tribunal, Jaipur hereinafter called as 'the Tribunal' under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service matters appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976, hereinafter called as 'the Act' by memorandum of appeal dated 26-8 76 (Annexure B ). The petitioner took preliminary objection in its reply Annexure C challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the order of retirement under Rule 244 (2) of the Rules.

(2.) THE Tribunal heard this objection at length because the same objection was raised in number of other cases pending before the Tribunal and which related 1o the authority and jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act to decide the matter relating to retirement under order 244 (2) of the Rules which is known in common parlance as compulsory retirement. THE Tribunal after hearing this case at length over-ruled the objection of the State on 17-2-1977 by a detailed judgment. THEre was a difference of opinion between the members of the Tribunal. Shri S. N. Deedwania and Shri P. K. B. Kurup constituting the majority came to the conclusion that such an order of compulsory retirement can be challenged as it is a service matter within the definition given in the Act of 1976. THE relevant part of their judgment is as under: "we are, therefore, of the opinion that when an order of retirement against a Government servant is made under rule 244 (2) of the RSR some of the grounds on which the aggrieved Civil Servant can challenge such an order are as follows: 1. That the requisite opinion has not been formed that the efficiency of the civil servant or the Government servant is impaired. 2. That the decision is based on collateral grounds 3.That it is arbitary or mala fide decision. 4. That the order is not made by the prescribed authority. 5. That the government servant or the civil servant has neither completed the qualifying service of 20 years nor has attained the age of 50 years. THE above grounds have been mentioned only by way of illustration and try by no means exhaustive. An order under Rule 244 (2) in our opinion can be challeged before the Tribunal when it has been made in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the rule, and the procedure laid down by the Government. Such an order would definitely deny or vary the service conditions to the disacvantage of a Government Servant otherwise than as a penalty. "

(3.) THE ordinary meaning of the word 'other service conditions' in the context in which it has been used would not include the manner relating to the compulsory retirement.