9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Rule 2046/2(a) of the Railway Establishment Code. 2. Right to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years. 3. Discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Rule 2046/2(a) of the Railway Establishment Code: The primary issue was whether the appellant, a clerk in the East Indian Railways, had the right to be retained in service until the age of 60 years under Rule 2046/2(a) of the Railway Establishment Code. The appellant argued that he should be retained in service as he continued to be efficient even after attaining the age of 55 years. The rule in question 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 interpreted this rule to mean that while the appropriate authority has the right to require a ministerial servant to retire at the age of 55 years, it also has the option to retain the servant until the age of 60 years if the servant continues to be efficient. However, this option is discretionary and not mandatory. The Court emphasized that the language "should ordinarily be retained" does not create a right for the servant to be retained but merely gives the authority the discretion to do so. 2. Right to Continue in Service Beyond the Age of 55 Years: The appellant contended that he had a right to continue in service until the age of 60 years if he remained efficient. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the rule does not confer any such right. The appropriate authority has the discretion to retain the servant if he continues to be efficient, but it is not bound to do so. The Court clarified that the rule's language does not cut down the authority's right to retire the servant at the age of 55 years. The intention of the rule-making authority was to provide the authority with an option to retain the servant, not an obligation. 3. Discrimination and Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution: The appellant also argued that the notifications issued by the Railway Board on October 19, 1948, and April 15, 1952, were discriminatory. These notifications provided special treatment to ministerial servants who were retired after September 8, 1948, allowing them to be taken back into service under certain conditions. The appellant claimed that this was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the classification of ministerial servants into those retired before and after September 8, 1948, was reasonable and did not offend Article 14. The decision to change the procedure for retiring servants after September 8, 1948, was a policy decision and did not arbitrarily discriminate against those who had retired before that date. The formation of different classes based on the date of retirement was deemed a reasonable classification. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, with the Court holding that the appellant had no right to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years under Rule 2046/2(a) of the Railway Establishment Code. The Court also found no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in the notifications issued by the Railway Board. The High Court's decision to dismiss the appellant's suit was upheld. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the appellant was a pauper.
|
