t Petition Civil No 1244 of 1986
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
WITH SLP Civil No 8948 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 14
i986 of the Delhi High Court in CWP No 795 of 1986
Jitender Sharma for the Petitioners
TU Mehta and GK Bansal for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA J
This special leave petition is filed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting a petition filed by the petitioners
A separate writ petition for the same relief is also filed in this Court
The two matters raise a simple question about the age of retirement of the employees in the Delhi Transport Corporation who were originally employed in the erstwhile Gwalior and Northern India Transport Company  GNIT Company  for short in 1946 or before that
PG NO 1005 It is not in dispute that before 1948 these petitioners were employed in the GNIT Company which was a company owned by the Rulers of Gwalior in the erstwhile native State of Gwalior
The said company was operating the transport services in Delhi and areas around upto 13th May 1948
On 14th May 1948 the transport services in Delhi were taken over by the Government of India the Ministry of Transport and it was named as Delhi Transport Service
The services of all the employees of the erstwhile GNIT company were taken over by the Government of India but they were continued to be governed by the rules which were in force before taking over
Subsequently it was taken over by the Delhi Municipal Corporation
Later on by the Delhi Transport Undertaking which came to be termed as Delhi Transport Corporation
Clause 7 of the agreement by which the GNIT services in Delhi were taken over by the Government of India provided that the services of the employees who were employed prior to 28th October 1946 and were in continuous service till i4th May 1948 shall not be taken over on the terms not less liberal than those they were governed and therefore the employees who were in employment prior to 28th October 1946 were treated as protected employees
These facts are not in dispute
According to the petitioners before they were taken over the service conditions of the employees of GNIT Company were governed by the Gwalior State Civil Service Rules
But the respondent denied that and said that they were governed by the Madhya Bharat Civil Service Rules
Admittedly Madhya Bharat came into existence in 1948 only
Before that there was no State of Madhya Bharat
Repeatedly opportunity was given to the respondent counsel to find out as to what rules were applicable to the employees of the GNIT company before Madhya Bharat was formed
Ultimately they pleaded their inability to place any rule
So far as Gwalior State Civil Service Rules are concerned a copy of it in Hindi has been filed by the petitioners with the English translation thereof
It is not disputed that these were the rules governing the civil servants in the Gwalior State
It is also not disputed that GNIT Company was originally a Company incorporated in India where it was owned by the rules of the erstwhile Gwalior State
According to petitioners Civil Service Rules of Gwalior were made applicable to these people
In addition to what has been stated in the petition and which has not been controverted they have also filed a judgment of the Industrial Court in Madhya Pradesh where this question about the conditions of service about retirement came into dispute after the formation of PG NO 1006 Madhya Bharat and the part of GNIT Company which was operating in the territories of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat was taken over by the State of Madhya Bharat Road Transport Corporation
There too a similar agreement was reached and the question arose as to whether the persons who were in employment before the taking over were governed by the Rules of the Gwalior State Civil servants
It was held that those were the rules and in those rules the normal age of retirement was 60 years
In view of these circumstances it appears beyond doubt that these people who were employed in the GNIT Company before taking over in Delhi by the Government of India were governed by the Gwalior State Civil Service Rules
The Gwalior Civil Service Rules provided CHAPTER l A 7a1 Every employee has a right to seek retirement from service after attaining the age of 55 years
2 The Government also has authority not to allow any employee to continue in employment after attaining the age of 55 years and order his retirement
3 In case an employee does not seek retirement from service after attaining the age of 55 years of the government also does not order his retirement form service than he shall continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years
4 Every employee shall compulsory retire after attaining the age of 60 years provided his services are not ordered to be terminated earlier
5 An employee who retires under these rules shall be entitled for pension or Gratuity to which he is entitled according to the rules
Note 1 These Rules will not apply to the Police Personnels
Note 2 The concerned Departments shall initiate retirement proceeding against those employees who have PG NO 1007 attained the age of 60 years at the time of enforcement of the rules but immediate action shall be taken for release of Pension or Gratuity in case of those who have become entitled for Gratuity or Pension and till pension or gratuity is not sanctioned they shall not be retired
In future this procedure shall be followed that action for pension or Gratuity shall be initiated one year in advance to which he is entitled at the age of 60 years in case of an employee who retire at the age of 60 years so that there shall be no delay in retiring him after attaining the age of 60 years
 The above rules it indicates clearly an employee who does not seek retirement from service after attaining the age of 55 years or if the Government does not order his retirement at that age shall continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years
It is also indicated with unmistakably terms that every employee shall compulsorily retire after attaining the age of 60 years provided his services are not ordered to be terminated earlier
In other words the age of retirement was 60 years
Option however was there for the employee to seek voluntary retirement at 55 years and for the Government to compulsorily retire him at 55
Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the above provisions
He however argued that the age of 55 years at which an employee could be asked to retire has been retired by the corporation from 55 to 58 and if an employee has been retired at 58 it was not prejudicial to him since he could have been retired at in his erstwhile
company only at 55
Our attention was invited to Service Regulation of the Corporation providing for these matters
The argument is attractive but on a deeper consideration we find little merit in it
If the Delhi Transport Corporation had exercised its right to retire the petitioners on attaining the age of 58 years the argument would have been tenable
But that was not done by the Corporation
The Corporation retired the petitioners on the ground that they attained the age of superannuation at 58 years
It is so stated by the notice Annex
E dated January 2 1986 issued by the Deputy Personnel Officer I to Hari Shankar Gaur petitioner in WP No 24486
The notice reads DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING l
P ESTATE NEW DELHl No PLD IXPF85128 Dt
211986 PG NO 1008 Shri Hari Shankar Gaur so Shri ML Gaur Office Supdt
will attain the age of superannuation ie 58 years on 3111986
He shall therefore retire from the service of this Corporation with effect from 3111986 in accordance with clause l0 of the DRT Act Conditions of AppointMent  Service Regulations 1952 read with office order No PLD2479 dated 731974
He may avail earned leave due to him prior to 311
1986 if he so desires
 We are told similar notices were issued to other employees as well
l hat means the Corporation was under the impression that the petitioners have no right to continue beyond the age of 58 years
We are therefore of the opinion that the persons who originally were in the employment of GNIT and were employed prior to October 28 1946 and who continued in service till May 14 1948 and onwards will have the right to remain in service up to 60 years unless the option to retire was exercised by the person or by the Corporation at 55 years
In the result the writ petition and the SLP are allowed to the extent indicated above
No order as to costs
GN Petitions allowed


Summary:
The respondent company manufactures ossein and gelatine from bones
Ossein is prepared from bones by dissolving the mineral part of the bones with phosphoric acid
From the ossein so obtained gelatine is obtained by treating the same further with an alkali
The company claimed exemption from excise duty under a notification of the Government of India dated 3061979 wherein crushed bones and bone products were added as an item exempt from payment of excise duty
The respondent appealed to the Appellate Tribunal which held that the products manufactured by the respondent company are bone products  and the company is entitled to the benefit of the notification treating it as a bone product 
The appellant Revenue therefore filed an appeal before this Court under section 35L of the Central Excises  Salt Act1944 and contended that the words bone products  should be read along with the words crushed bones and ossein and gelatine cannot be described as bone products because they could also be obtained from raw material other than bones such as pig skin and hides
Dismissing the appeal
the Court HELD The expression bone products merely means anything produced or obtained from bones
Whether such derivation is by a simple physical process or by a chemical reaction would seem to make no difference to the end product
996F The products in question ossein are derived merely by the extraction of the mineral parts of the bones
Gelatine is obtained by a further treatment with an alkali of the ossein manufactured from the bones
It is the collageon PG NO 993 PG NO 994 which forms the organic content of the bones that is utilised in the manufacture of ossein and gelatine
996E Collector of Customs Bombay vs Swastic Woollen P Ltd