Appeal No 1768 of 1969
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 8 1968 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No 657 of 1968
189 M C Setalvad Ram Punjwani and section P Nayar for the appellants
R B Datar and M section Narasimhan for the respondent
M K Ramamurthi Shyamala Pappu and J Ramamurthi for intervener No 1
section Ramasubramanian and J Ramamurthi for intervener No2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam J
In this appeal by special leave the question that arises for consideration is regarding the validity of the new Note substituted in place of the old Note on December 23 1967 to cl
b of rule 2046 FR 56 of the Indian Railway Fundamental Rules
The High Court by its judgment and order under appeal dated October 8 1968 has struck down the new Note as dis criminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution
The respondent was originally an employee of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company hereinafter to be referred as the Company having joined the service on August 16 1927 as Clerk Grade 1
His date of birth there is controversy was April 15 1910
The Company was amalgamated with the Indian Railway Administration in the year 1947 and on such amalgamation the respondent became the employee of the Indian Railway Administration
There is also no controversy That he came within the classification of a ministerial railway servant within the meaning of that expression occurring in rule 2046
Rule 2046 deals with retirement of a railway servant At the time of amalgamation under cl
1 of the said rule the date of retirement of a railway servant other than a ministerial railway servant was the date on which he attained the age of 55 years
It was also provided therein that the said railway servant after attaining the age of retirement may be retained in service with the sanction of the competent authority on public ground to be recorded in writing
But there was a prohibition regarding retention of such a railway servant after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances
Clause 2 of the said rule which deals with a ministerial railway servant under which category the respondent falls at the time of amalgamation was as follows  2046 2 a A ministerial servant who is not governed by sub clause b may be required to retire at the age of 55 years but should ordinarily be retained in service if he continues efficient up to the age of 60 190 years
He must not be retained after that age except in very special circumstances which must be recorded in writing and with the sanction of the competent authority
b A ministerial servant i who has entered Government service on or after the 1st April 1938 or ii who being in Government service on the 31st March 1938 did not hold a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post on that date
shall ordinarily be required to retire at the age of 55 years
He must not be retained after that age except on public grounds which must be recorded in writing and with the sanction of the competent authority and he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances
 It will be noted that under sub clause a quoted above a ministerial servant who is not governed by sub clause b may be required to retire at the age of 55 years but if he continues to be efficient he should ordinarily be retained in service upto the date of 60 years
Retention in service after the age of 60 years can only be under very special circumstances to be recorded in writing and with the sanction of the competent authority
There was a further special provision made under cl
b in respect of a ministerial servant who had entered Government service on or after April 1 1938 or being in Government service on that date did not hold a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post oh that date
On December 5 1962 the Railway Board addressed a com munication to the General Managers of All Indian Railways that the Government were considering the question for some time whether the age of compulsory retirement of railway servants should be raised above 55 years
It is further stated that the President is pleased to direct that the age of compulsory retirement of railway servants should be 58 years subject to the three exceptions mentioned in the order
The only relevant exception is Exception No 1 relating to ministerial railway servants which was as follows  i The existing rule 2046 FR 56 2a RII under which ministerial railway servants who held a lien or suspended lien on a permanent post on 31st March 1938 are to be retained in set vice upto the age 191 of 60 years subject to their continuing to be efficient and physically fit after attaining the age of 55 years will remain in force
It will be seen from the decisionof the Government as com municated in the above letter that the age of retirement of railway servants was raised from 55 to 58 years
But this was subject to the restriction regarding the continuance of a ministerial servant after 55 years upto the age of 60 years as provided for under sub clause b of cl
2 of rule 2046
On January 11 1967 the old rule 2046 as amended in 1962 was substituted by the new rule
The new rule consisted of four clauses but we are not concerned with clauses c and d The material part of the said rule relevant to be noted are clauses a and b together with the note to clause b which ran as follows  2046 FR 56 a Except as otherwise provided in this rule every railway servant shall retire on the day he attains the age of fifty eight years
b A ministerial railway servant who entered Government service on or before the 31st March 1938 and held on that date i a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post or ii a permanent post in a provisional substantive capacity under Clause d of Rule 2008 and continued to told the same without interruption until he was confirmed in that postshall be retained in service till the day he attains the age of sixty years
NOTE  For the purpose of this Clause the expression Government Service include service rendered in ex company and ex State Railways and in a former provincial Government Two aspects broadly emerge from the above new rule  a every ministerial railway servant who had entered Government service on or before March 31 1938 and who satisfied the conditions mentioned in sub clause i or ii of clause b had a right to continue in service till he attained the age of sixty years and b under the Note the expression Government Service in clause b takes in service rendered in ex company ex State Railways and in a former provincial Govern 192 ment
There is no controversy that the respondent held a permanent post in the Company on March 31 1938
Therefore under this new rule he would be entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of sixty years as provided in cl
b read with the Note thereto
On December 12 1967 the Note to cl
b of rule  2046 defining the expression Government Service as per the order dated January 11 1967 was deleted and a new Note was substituted in its place
The order dated December 23
1967 together with the new Note is as follows  For the existing note substitute the following For the purpose of this clause the expression Government Service includes service rendered in a former provincial government and in ex
Company and ex
State Railways if the rules of the Company or the State had a provision similar to Clause b above
 From the new Note extracted above it will be seen that the definition of the expression Government Service was changed
The effect of the new Note so far as the respondent is concerned is that whereas he was entitled to continue in service upto 60 years as per clause b read with the note thereto under rule 2046 as substituted on January 11 1967 now he can get service upto 60 years only if the Company had a provision similar to cl
b of rule 2046
There is no dispute that under the service conditions applicable to the respondent when he was an employee of the Company he had no right to continue in service till he attained the age of sixty years
On the other hand under the service conditions of the Company he had to retire at the age of 55 years
It appears that after the introduction of the new rule 2046 on January 11 1967 the Divisional Accounts Officer Hubli passed an order on March 31 1967 that the respondent was entitled to continue in Office till he attained the age of 60 years
But after the new Note to cl
b to rule 2046 was substituted on December 23 1967 the Divisional Accounts Officer Hubli passed an order on January 17 1968 to the effect that the respondent is to retire from service on April 14 1968 on which date he would be attaining the age of 58 years
The said order also states that this action was being taken in view of the new Note substituted on December 23 1967 to cl
b of rule 2046
The respondent filed on March 6 1968 in the Mysore High Court Writ Petition No 657 of 1968 challenging the legality and validity of the order dated January 17 1968 retiring him from service with effect from April 4 1968
In the writ petition 193 he had referred to his previous service in the Company and to the latter being amalgamated with the Indian Railway Administration in 1947
According to him after such amalgmation he has become a ministerial railway servant under the Indian Railway Administration and all the rules applicable to the employees of the latter became applicable to him
In particular he pleaded that he was entitled to continue in service until he attained the age of sixty years as per the new rule 2046 introduced on January 11 1967 as he satisfies all the conditions prescribed under cl
b thereof
He particularly attacked the new Note to cl
b substituted on December 23 1967 as discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution
According to him the members of the Indian Railway Service similarly situated like him will be
entitled to continue in service till 60 years whereas that right has been denied to persons like him under the new Note
He also referred to the order passed on March 31 1967 by the Divisional Accounts Officer Hubli in and by which it was directed that he was entitled to continue in service till 60 years
According to the respondent the Railway Administration was not entitled to go back on this order
On these grounds the respondent challenged the validity of the order directing him to retire on the basis of the new Note
The appellant contested the writ petition on the ground that the order dated March 31 1967 was passed on the basis of the rule 2046 read with the Note as it existed on January 11 1967 But the position was changed by the deletion of the original Note to cl
b and its substitution by the new Note on December 23 1967
The appellant claimed that the service conditions of persons like the respondent have always been different from those serving under the Railway Administration and that by the introduction of the new Note no discrimination has been practised on any officer
On the other hand according to the appellant the new Note only gave effect to the conditions of service which obtained in the Company where the respondent originally joined service
The appellant further pleaded that the new Note does not violate article 14 of the Constitution
The High Court by its judgment and order dated October 8 1968 has accepted the contentions of the respondent and held that the new Note substituted to cl
b of rule 2046 on December 23 1967 is discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution
In this view the said Note was struck down
In consequence the High Court set aside the order dated January 17 1968 and gave a declaration that the respondent was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of sixty years
Mr M C Setalvad learned counsel for the appellant Rail way Board has strenuously attacked the finding of the High 194 Court that the new Note substituted on December 23 1967 to cl
b is discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution
On the other hand he urged that a distinction has always been made in the case of ministerial railway servant who is governed by cf
b and those who are not so governed by that clause of rule 2046
Different provisions regarding the age of retirement have been provided in respect of those two classes of ministerial railway servants
The new Note Mr Setalvad pointed out only gives recognition to the practice that has been obtain ing in respect of the ministerial railway servants under their previous employers
He further pointed out that the Note to cf
b of rule 2046 incorporated on January 11 1967 gave the benefit of the expression Government Service  to persons like the respondent who have previously been working in ex Company provincial Government or ex State Railways
The new Note keeps the same categories of employees within the expression Government Service but adds a qualification that in order to have the benefit of a longer period of service they should have had such benefit under their previous employers
Mr Setalvad further pointed out that a government servant has no right to continue in service till the age of 60 years and that the option to so continue him upto that age vests exclusively within the discretion of the authority concerned
For this proposition the counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Kailash Chandra vs Union of India1 interpreting clause 2 of rule 2046 as it existed prior to the amendment in 1962
In any event Mr Setalvad pointed out that the officers who had worked under a former provincial Government Ex Company or Ex State Railways and who have been dealt with under the new Note substituted on December 23 1967 form a class by themselves and therefore there is a reasonable classification of such officers and that satisfies the requirement of article 14 of the Constitution
On all these grounds Mr Setalvad urged that the new Note is not discriminatory and it does not violate article 14 of the Constitution
Mr R B Datar learned counsel for the respondent and Ms M K Ramamurthi and J Ramamurthi who appeared for the two interveners have supported the reasoning of the High Court for holding that article 14 is violated by the new Note to cl
b of rule 2046
We are of the opinion that the contentions of Mr Setalvad cannot be accepted
No doubt the counsel is justified in his contention only to this limited extent namely that under cl
2 of rule 2046 as it existed prior to its amendment on January 11 1967 that ministerial railway servant falling under that clause has no right to continue in service beyond the age of 55 and that 1  195
the appropriate authority has the option to continue him in service after his attaining the age of 55 years subject to the condition that the servant continues to be efficient
This Court in Kailash Chandra s case1 had an occasion to consider rule 2046 2 a as it originally stood
It was held that the ministerial railway servants falling under the said clause may be compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 55 years
But when the servant is between the age of 55 and 60 years the option to continue him in service subject to the servant continuing to be efficient exclusively vests with the appropriate authority
It was further laid down that the authority is not bound to retain a railway servant after the age of 55 years even if the continues to be efficient
It was
further emphasised that the rule gave no right to a ministerial railway servant to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years
It is in view of the above principles laid down by this Court
we have observed earlier that Mr Setalvad s contention in respect of the rule 2046 as it originally stood is well founded
But this Court in the above decision had no occasion to consider the problem that now arises by virtue of the new Note added to cl
b of rule 2046
There is no controversy that after the amalgamation of the Company with the Indian Railway Administration the respondent has become an employee of the latter
If so in our opinion the respondent is entitled to be given the same rights and privileges that are available to the other emplo yees employed by the Indian Railway Administration
That exactly was the position under the rule 2046 as it originally stood after its amendment on December 5 1962 increasing the age of retirement to 58 years as also under the new rule 2046 incorporated on January 11 1967
All these rules upto and inclusive of January 11 1967 treated the former employees of the Ex Company Ex State Railways and former provincial Governments who were amalgamated with the Indian Railway Administration in 1947 on a par the other original employees of the Indian Railway Administration
In fact the Note to cl
b of rule 2046 incorporated on January 11 1967 reinforced this position by making it clear that the expression Government Service  in cl
b will include service under the various employers referred to therein
Mr Setalvad placed reliance on the fact that rule 2046 as it existed upto and inclusive of January 11 1967 dealt differently with the age of retirement in respect of  i a railway servant coming under cl
a and ii a ministerial railway servant coming under cl
He further pointed out that even in respect of a ministerial railway servant coming under cl
b the latter in order to be eligible to have a longer age of retirement should be one who complies with the conditions mentioned there 1  196 in
These conditions are as per el
b existing on January 1 1 1967 that the officer should have entered government service on or before March 31 1938
The said officer should also have the one or the other of the qualifications mentioned in sub clauses iand ii
That is according to the learned counsel if a ministerial railway servant has not entered government service before March 31 1938 he will not be eligible for the longer age of retirement
These circumstances will clearly show according to Mr Setalvad that the rule has been through out maintaining a distinction even amongst the ministerial railway servants working under the Indian Railway Administration
This argument may on the face of it appear to be attractive but in our opinion it cannot be accepted
The point to be noted is that though a distinction has been made in the rule between a railway servant coming under el
a and a ministerial railway servant coming under el
b those clauses will apply uniformly to all members of the Indian Railway Administration depending upon whether they are railway servants coming under el
a or a ministerial railway servant coming under el
b as the case may be
To all railway servants coming under el
a the age of retirement is the same
Similarly to all ministerial railway servants coming under el
b the age of retirement is again the same
Further if a ministerial railway servant does not satisfy the requirements of cl
b he will not be eligible to get the extended period Of retirement
That again will apply to all ministerial railway servants who do not satisfy the requirements of el
We are emphasising this aspect to show that no distinction has been made either in el
a or el
b regarding the uniform application in respect of the age of retirement to the officers mentioned therein and who are governed by those clauses
That is there is no inter se distinction made
The distinction made in el
b regarding the ministerial railway servants who entered government service on or before March 31 1938 is again of uniform application
That rule only makes a broad distinction between the ministerial railway servants who entered government service on or before March 31 1938 and who entered government service after that date
As per the Note to el
b to rule 2046 incorporated on January 11 1967 the respondent is a person who has entered government service on or before March 31 1938 and satisfies also the requirements under sub cl
ii or el
b Similarly another railway servant may have entered government service under the Indian Railway Administration on or before March 31 1938
He also under el
b will be a ministerial railway servant who has entered government service on or before March 31 1938 and if he satisfies one or other of the conditions mentioned in sub clauses i and ii of el
b he will be entitled to continue in service till 60 years
That means both persons like the respondent and the officers who have straight 197 joined the service under the Indian Railway Administration prior March 31 1938 and who satisfy the requirements under sub clause i or sub clause ii of clause b will be equally entitled continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years
These acts clearly show that cls
a and b of rule 2046 had uniform application to all the employees of the Indian Railway Administration
Coming to the new rule 2046 incorporated on January 11 1967 the conditions of service of persons like the respondent have been better crystalised
Read with the Note under cl
b the respondent is a ministerial railway servant who had entered government service on or before March 31 1938
By virtue of cl
b he was entitled to be retained in service till he attains the age of 60 years
It is to be noted that there is no option left with the employer but to retain such a ministerial railway servant upto 60 years
In other words if the ministerial railway servant satisfies the requirements of cl
b he is as of right entitled to be in service till he attains the age of 60 years
Similarly cl
a introduced on January 11 1967 gives a right to a railway servant to continue in office till he attains the age of 58 years
Here again there is no option vested with the authorities except to continue him till that age
The option to extend the period of service of the officers mentioned in cls
a and b is dealt with under sub clauses d and c respectively which we have not quoted
Sub clauses c and d deal with the granting of extension of service beyond the period mentioned in sub clauses b and a
The option to extend the service beyond the period mentioned in sub causes a and b may be with the authorities but they have no voice in a railway servant coming under cl
b continuing upto 60 years
That the authorities also understood the position in the manner mentioned above is clear from the order dated March 31 1967 of the Divisional Accounts Officer Hubli declaring the right of the respondent to continue in service upto 60 years
in fact this order was passed in consequence of the new rule 2046 substituted on January 11 1967
Therefore from what is stated above it is clear that upto and inclusive of January 11 1967 no distinction inter se apart from that made by clauses a and b between the officers of the Indian Railway Administration from whatever source they may have come was made
Even at the risk repetition we may state that under cl
b of rule 2046 as introduced on January 11 1967 the original employees of the Indian Railway Administration as well as persons like the respondent who came into the Indian Railway Administration in 1947 were both entitled as of right to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years
This position admittedly has been changed by altering the definition of the 198 expression Government Service by the new Note to cl
b introduced on December 23 1967
Under that Note it cannot be gain said that a distinction has been made between the original employees of the Indian Railway Administration and the new employees who were amalgamated with the Indian Railway Administration in 1947 but who had their previous service with either a former provincial Government or an Ex Company or Ex State Railways
In the case of such employees the benefit of the extended age of retirement that has been given to the other employees of the Indian Railway Administration was made available only if the new employees had the same benefit under their previous employers
Therefore the position is that on and after December 23 1967 though all the employees are under the Indian Railway Administration there will be two sets of rules relating to the age of retirement depending upon the fact whether they were in the original employment of the Indian Railway Administration or on the fact of their coming from one or  the other of the employers mentioned in the new Note
It is in consequence of the new Note that the order dated January 17
1968 was issued by the Divisional Accounts Officer Hubli that the respondent has to retire at the age of 58 years on April 14 1968
The question is whether the distinction made under the new Note to cl
b substituted on December 23 1967 valid In our opinion such a rule which makes a distinction between the employees working under the same Indian Railway Administration is not valid The position after the new Note was added is that the employee who had through out been under the Indian Railway Administration is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years whereas the persons like the respondent who are also the employees of the Indian Railway Administration but whose previous services were with the Company will have to refire at the age of 58 years because a provision similar to cl
b did not exist in the service conditions of the Company
Discrimination on the face of it is writ large in the new Note which is under challenge
Mr Setalvad no doubt urged that the ministerial railway servant who was originally employee of a Company Ex State Railway or a former Provincial Government dealt with under the new Note are a class by themselves and therefore there is a reasonable classification
Once the employees dealt with under the new Note have taken up service under the Indian Railway Administration and have been treated alike upto January 11 1967 it follows in our opinion that they cannot again be classified separately from the other employees of the lndian Railway Administration
Therefore we are not inclined to accept the 199 contention that the classification of these officers under the new Note is a reasonable classification and satisfies one of the essential requisites of article 14 of the Constitution as interpreted by this Court
We will assume that in dealing with the types of employees under the new Note there is a reasonable classification
Nevertheless the further question arises whether the reasonable classification with the added condition in the Note incorporated on December 23 1967 can be said to have a nexus or a relation to the object sought to be achieved by cl
b of rule 2046  The object of rule 2046 itself is to provide for the age of retirement of the two types of officers coming under cls
a and b
Where there is no indication that any further distinction inter se is sought to be made amongst the officers mentioned in cls
a and b and when an uniform age of retirement has also been fixed in respect of the officers coming under these two clauses the classification carving out the ex employees of the three authorities mentioned therein with the added condition that the rules of the Company or the State should have a provision similar to clause b has in our opinion no nexus or relation to the object of the rule
For the reasons given above we are of the view that the High Court was justified in striking down the order of the Divisional Accounts Officer Hubli dated January 17 1968 directing the respondent to retire from service on April 14 1968 on which date he will attain the age of 58 years
However it is not clear from the judgment of the High Court whether the entire new Note substituted under cl
b of rule 2046 on December 23 1967 has been struck down or whether it has struck down only the new condition incorporated in the said Note
Even as per the Note under cl
b incorporated along with the new rule 2046 on January 11 1967 the expression Government Service included service rendered in Ex Company Ex State Railways and in a former provincial Government and such a provision is beneficial to the employees like the respondent
In the new substituted Note dated December 23 1967
the first part of the Note including in government service any service rendered in a former provincial Government Ex Company and Ex State Railways is more or less identical with the original Note of January 11 1967 though in the new Note the order of the former employees has been slightly changed
In our opinion that part of the new rule providing that for the purpose of cl
b the expression Government Service includes service rendered in a former provincial Government and in a Ex Company and Ex State Railways can be allowed to stand to this extent
Therefore the offending part in the new Note are the further words if the 200 rules of the Company or the State had a provision similar to Clause b above
This offending part can be deleted without doing violence to the definition of the expression Goverment Service even under the new Note
Therefore it is only necessary to strike down the offending part in the Note namely if the rules of the Company or the State had a provision similar to Clause b above and this part of the Note alone is struck down as discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution
Subject to the above directions the judgment and order of the High Court are confirmed and this appeal dismissed
Special leave to appeal has been granted on August 7 1969 subject to the conditions that the appellant is to pay the costs of the respondent in any event
The respondent accordingly will be entitled to his costs in the appeal
KBN Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Rule 2046 FR 56 of the Indian Railway Fundamental Rules was substituted on January 11 1967 by a new Rule
Undo cl
b of the new Rule 2046 every ministerial railway servant who had entered government service on or before March 31 1938 and who satisfied the conditions mentioned in sub cls
i and ii of cl
b had a right to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years
The Note to the Rule defined the expression government service  as including service rendered in ex company and ex State Railway and in a former provincial government
On December 23 1967 a new Note was substituted which stated that the expression government service  included service rendered in a former provincial government and in ex company and ex State Railways if the rules of the company or the State had a provision similar to cl
b above
The respondent joined the service of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway company on August 16 1927
The company was amalgamated with the Indian Railway Administration in 1947 and on such amalgamation the respondent became the employee of the Indian Railway Administration He was a ministerial servant within the meaning of that expression in r 2046
On March 31 1938 he held a permanent post in the company
After the introduction of r 2046 on January 11 1967 the Divisional Accounts Officer passed an order that the respondent was entitled to continue in office till he attained the age of 60 years
But after the new Note to cl
b to r 2046 was substituted on December 23 1967 another order was passed to the effect that the respondent was retired from service on April 14 1968 on attaining the age of 58 years
The order also stated that this action was being taken in view of the new Note substituted on December 12 1967
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the order retiring him from service
The High Court struck down the order and gave a declaration that the respondent was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years on the ground that the order was discriminatory and therefore violative of article 14 of the Constitution
Dimissing the appeal to this Court HELD  The High Court was justified in striking down the order directing the respondent to retire from service
1 Rule 2046 as it stood originally and on January 11 1967 treated the former employees of the ex company ex State Railway and former provincial Government 188 who were amalgamated with the Indian Administration in 1947 on a par with the other original employees of the Indian Railway Administration
In fact the Note to cl 
b of r 2046 incorporated in January 11 1967 only reinforced this position
Read with the Note under el
b the respondent is a ministerial servant who had entered government service on or before March 31 1938 and therefore by virtue of el
b he was entitled to be retained in service till he attained the age of 60 years
C 2 Up to and inclusive of January 11 1967 no distinction inter se apart from that made by cls
a and b between officers of Indian Railway Administration from whatever source they may have I come was made
The position admittedly has been changed by altering the definition of the expression government service by the new Note to el
b Thus on and after December 23 1967 though all the employees are under the Indian Railway Administration there will be two sets of rules relating to the age of retirement depending upon the fact whether they were in the original employment of Indian Railway Administration or on the fact of their coming from one or the other employers mentioned in the new Note
Discrimination is writ large on the face of the new Note
Once the employees dealt with under the new Note have taken up service under the Indian Railway Administration and have been treated alike up to January 11 1967 if follows that they cannot again be classified separately from the other employees of the Indian Railway Administration
Therefore the classification of these officers under the new Note is not a reasonable classification
197 G 198 F 3 Assuming there is a reasonable classification the classification cannot be said to have a nexus or relation to the object sought to be achieved by el
b of r 2046 which is to provide for the age of retirement of the two types of officers coming under cls
a and b
Where there is no indication that any further distinction inter se is sought to be made amongst the officers mentioned in cls
a and b and when a uniform age of retirement has also been fixed in respect of officers coming under these two clauses the classification carving out the ex employees of the three authorities mentioned therein with the added condition that the rules of the company or the State should have a provision similar to el
b has no nexus or relation to the object of the Rule
199 B 4 Though a distinction has been made in the Rule between a railway servant coming under el
a and a ministerial railway servant coming under el
b in regard to age of retirement those clauses will apply uniformly to all members of the Indian Railway Administration depending upon whether they are railway servants coming under el
a or ministerial railway servants coming under el
The distinction made in el
b regarding the ministerial railway servants who entered government service on or before March 31 1938 is again of uniform application
196 H 5 It is only necessary to strike down the offending part in the Note namely if the rules of the company or the State had a provision similar to el
b and this part of the Note alone is struck down as discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution
200 B