9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Rule 2046/2(a) of the Railway Establishment Code. 2. Right of the appellant to be retained in service until the age of 60 years. 3. Allegation of discrimination due to notifications dated October 19, 1948, and April 15, 1952. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Rule 2046/2(a) of the Railway Establishment Code: The primary issue revolves around the proper interpretation of Rule 2046/2(a) of the Railway Establishment Code, which is identical to Fundamental Rule 56(b)(i). The appellant, a clerk in the East Indian Railways, was compulsorily retired at the age of 55. He contended that he should have been retained in service until the age of 60, as he continued to be efficient. The rule states: "A ministerial servant who is not governed by sub-cl. (b) may be required to retire at the age of 55 years but should ordinarily be retained in service if he continues to be efficient up to the age of 60 years." The court found that the language of the rule is "unnecessarily involved" but clear in its intention. The rule provides the appropriate authority with the option to retain the servant until the age of 60, subject to efficiency, but does not obligate the authority to do so. The term "ordinarily" indicates that retention is not mandatory but discretionary. The court concluded that the rule does not confer a right to the appellant to be retained in service beyond 55 years, even if he is efficient. 2. Right of the appellant to be retained in service until the age of 60 years: The appellant argued that if he continued to be efficient, he had a right to be retained in service until the age of 60. The court disagreed, stating that the rule provides the authority with discretion to retain the servant but does not create an obligation to do so. The court emphasized that the appropriate authority must consider other circumstances in addition to efficiency when deciding on retention. The court referred to previous judgments, including Jai Ram v. Union of India, where a similar interpretation was assumed for argument's sake but not definitively decided. The court affirmed that the High Court was correct in holding that the rule did not grant the appellant a right to continue in service beyond the age of 55. 3. Allegation of discrimination due to notifications dated October 19, 1948, and April 15, 1952: The appellant also contended that the notifications issued by the Railway Board, which provided special treatment to ministerial servants retired after September 8, 1948, were discriminatory. The notifications mandated that no ministerial servant could be retired without a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed retirement. The court found that the decision to change the procedure from September 8, 1948, was reasonable and did not constitute arbitrary discrimination. The classification of ministerial servants into those retired before and after September 8, 1948, was deemed reasonable and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court concluded that the appellant's contention of discrimination lacked substance. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 2046/2(a) did not confer a right on the appellant to be retained in service beyond the age of 55, even if he continued to be efficient. The court also found no merit in the appellant's claim of discrimination due to the notifications issued by the Railway Board. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the appellant was a pauper.
|
