9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction to extend service of an employee after retirement. 2. Interpretation of Fundamental Rule 56 regarding compulsory retirement. 3. Validity of departmental proceedings as grounds for retaining an employee in service. 4. Authority to extend service period retrospectively. 5. Requirement of state government sanction for extending service. Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction to extend service of an employee after retirement The case involved the appellant extending the service of the respondent beyond his retirement date for the completion of departmental proceedings. The High Court held that the appellant had no jurisdiction to extend the service when no proceedings were pending against the respondent at the time of retirement or when the notifications were issued. The High Court relied on a previous decision and concluded that the mere possibility of disciplinary proceedings did not constitute "public grounds" for retaining the employee in service. Issue 2: Interpretation of Fundamental Rule 56 regarding compulsory retirement Fundamental Rule 56, as applicable to the respondent, allowed for the retention of a government servant after the age of 55 with the sanction of the Provincial Government on public grounds. The appellant argued that the rule did not confer an automatic right to retire at 55 and that the completion of departmental proceedings could be a valid ground for retention. The Court did not provide a final ruling on this issue due to other considerations. Issue 3: Validity of departmental proceedings as grounds for retention The appellant contended that the completion of departmental proceedings against the respondent could be considered a "public ground" for retaining him in service. The Court acknowledged this argument but did not delve into a final decision as it was unnecessary for the case's resolution. Issue 4: Authority to extend service period retrospectively The Court analyzed the orders extending the respondent's service period and found that the State Government's unilateral action to extend the service after the initial retirement date was invalid. The Court emphasized that the State Government should have issued a notification before the original retirement date to continue the service. Issue 5: Requirement of state government sanction for extending service The Court clarified that since the order retaining the respondent in service was passed by the State Government itself before the retirement date, no additional sanction was required. The High Court's decision to disallow the extension of service beyond the initial retirement date was upheld by the Supreme Court, though not on the same grounds cited by the High Court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's decision to disallow the extension of service beyond the initial retirement date due to the State Government's invalid unilateral action. The Court emphasized the necessity of issuing notifications before the retirement date for any extension of service to be valid.
|
