RAJVI AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been referred to a larger Bench for decision, as the Division Bench before which it was placed for hearing thought that the points involved in this case ought to be decided by a Larger Bench.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated. THE petitioner was appointed as a Munsif Magistrate in the former State of Bikaner on September 9, 1937. THE date of birth of the petitioner, as entered in the civil list of the former State of Bikaner, is August 30, 1911. THE petitioner was promoted in due course of time as a District Judge in the former State of Bikaner and was confirmed as such by the notification of the then Bikaner High Court dated July 2, 1947 with effect from February 13, 1947. THEreafter, the princely States of Rajasthan, including the former State of Bikaner, joined together to form the United State of Rajasthan, which came in to being on April 7, 1949. THE petitioner, thereafter, came to be posted as Senior Civil Judge and Additional Sessions Judge at Jhunjhunu on ad-hoc basis in the newly formed State of Rajasthan, with effect from July 1, 1950. THE officers belonging to the judicial services of the various covenanting States were integrated to form 'the Rajasthan Judicial Service' and substantive appointments to the aforesaid service were made by the Government of Rajasthan by the notification dated April 23, 1951. THE petitioner was placed in group 'c', relat-ing to Civil Judges and Munsifs, at Serial No. 18, in the integrated set up, by the aforesaid order of the State Government dated April 23, 1951.

(3.) THE petitioner's contention is two fold. In the first place, it was contended by him that having opted to be governed by the rules of the former State of Bikaner, he had a right to continue in the service until he attained the age of 58 years and could not be made to retire earlier thereto. In the second place the petitioner contended that the reduction in age of superannuation by amendment of Rule 56 of the Rules could not have affected him as the said amendment was brought about without consultation with the High Court. Both these contentions are contested by the respondents and their case is that the petitioner was rightly retired on attaining the age of 55 years, in accordance with the provisions of rule 56 of the Rules, as amended by the notification dated June 13,1967 and that the amended rule 56, which was also operative before December 1, 1962 and according to which the date of retirement of a government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years was effective, so far as the petitioner was concerned, as neither the amendment made on December 1, 1962 nor subsequent amendment made by the notification dated June 13, 1967 were made in consultation with the High Court, and further that the fixation of the age of superannuation and compulsory retirement is not a matter which is governed by the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution.