1992 (7) TMI 344 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority to Compulsorily Retire
2. Necessity of Central Government Approval
3. Applicability of Regulation 30(3) and F.R. 56(j)
4. Applicability of Premature Retirement to Tenure Post
5. Legality of the Resolution to Compulsorily Retire
6. Consideration of Relevant Material for Compulsory Retirement
7. Allegations of Mala Fides and Arbitrary Exercise of Power
8. Continuation in the Post of Professor of Ophthalmology

Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority to Compulsorily Retire:
The High Court examined who had the authority to compulsorily retire the petitioner. It concluded that the appointing authority had the right to retire the petitioner under Regulation 30(3) of the AIIMS Regulations, 1958.

2. Necessity of Central Government Approval:
The High Court addressed whether prior approval from the Central Government was necessary to compulsorily retire the Director. It determined that such approval was not required under the existing regulations.

3. Applicability of Regulation 30(3) and F.R. 56(j):
The High Court considered whether the Director could be compulsorily retired under Regulation 30(3) or alternatively under Fundamental Rule (F.R.) 56(j). It found that both provisions allowed for the premature retirement of the Director in the public interest after attaining the age of 55 years.

4. Applicability of Premature Retirement to Tenure Post:
The High Court rejected the appellant's contention that the concept of premature retirement was alien to a tenure post. It reasoned that the appointment order, which stated a tenure of five years or till the age of 62 years, inherently included the concept of superannuation.

5. Legality of the Resolution to Compulsorily Retire:
The High Court reviewed the resolution passed by the Institute-Body on November 24, 1980, and found it to be legally and properly moved.

6. Consideration of Relevant Material for Compulsory Retirement:
The High Court examined whether the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner was based on relevant material. It concluded that the decision was made after considering all relevant factors.

7. Allegations of Mala Fides and Arbitrary Exercise of Power:
The High Court rejected the appellant's allegations of mala fides and arbitrary exercise of power, finding no evidence to support these claims.

8. Continuation in the Post of Professor of Ophthalmology:
The High Court did not specifically address whether the petitioner could continue as a Professor of Ophthalmology after being retired from the post of Director.

Supreme Court Judgment:

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning, emphasizing that the post of Director of AIIMS is a tenure post filled by direct recruitment. It held that the concept of superannuation or premature retirement does not apply to a tenure post. The Court stated, "The appointment of the appellant was on a Five Years Tenure but it could be curtailed in the event of his attaining the age of 62 years before completing the said tenure."

The Supreme Court quashed the resolution of the Institute-Body dated November 24, 1980, and the consequent order retiring the appellant. Since the appellant had already attained the age of 62 years, reinstatement was not possible. However, the Court directed that the appellant be paid his salary (less non-practising allowance) for the period from December 1, 1981, to January 21, 1984, with 12% interest on the arrears. The costs were quantified at Rs. 10,000/-.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the appellant's writ petition and quashing the premature retirement order. The appellant was entitled to salary arrears and interest, but reinstatement was not feasible due to age constraints.