ivil Appeal No 1731 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 264
1985 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition No 1729 of 1984
Avadh Behari and SK Gambhir for the Appellant
330 Rameshwar Nath VS Dabir Rajinder Narain for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J
SP Dubey employed with the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was retired from service on his attaining the age of 58 years
He claims that the age of superannuation was 60 years and as such his retirement at 58 was illegal
We may state the necessary facts
Dubey joined service as a junior clerk with the Central Provinces Transport Service Limited hereinafter called the company in the year 1947
The Board of Directors of the company by a resolution dated July 30 1954 fixed the age of superannuation of all its employees except the drivers as 60 years
The company was purchased and taken Over by the State of Madhya Pradesh by a notification dated August 31 1955
The relevant part of the said notification is as under The undertaking will as from the 31st August 1955 be entitled The Central Provinces Transport Services under Government Ownership
So far as the public is concerned there will be no change or interruption in the course of business and the continuity of operation will not be dis turbed and the existing staff will not be adversely affected with regard to terms and conditions of their services
The statutory instrument to be made in due course will provide among other things that all the rights and liabilities of the Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd will become the rights and liabilities of the Central Provinces Trans port Services Under Government ownership and from a legal point of view the staff customers and contractors can look to the Central Provinces Transport Services Under Govern ment ownership to discharge all the obligations and exer cise all the rights that at present rest with the Central Provinces Transport Service Ltd Rules for the conduct of business of the above constituted Board of Management are being published separately
 It is thus obvious that the Government continued to maintain the Central Provinces Transport Services as a separate entity
The conditions of service of the staff of the taken over company were specifically protected
331 The State of Madhya Pradesh was recoganised under the 
The Central Government by a notification dated February 28 1961 extended the provi sions of Road Transport Corporation Act 1958 hereinafter called the Act  to the State of Madhya Pradesh with effect from April 1 1961
Thereafter the Madhya Pradesh Government acting under Section 3 of the Act established the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter called Corporation with effect from May 21 1962
The Madhya Pradesh Government issued two memorandums on May 4 1962
By one memorandum the services of the concerned employees including Dubey were transferred to the Corporation and by the second it was clarified that the said transfer was subject to the conditions that their service would be treat ed as uninterrupted and their pay scales and conditions of service would not be affected
On the same day and Board of Directors of the Corporation passed a resolution to the following effect Resolved that the services of the employees employed under MBR and CPTS on 3151962 are transferred to the Corporation temporarily until further orders from 161962 on the following conditions 1
The pay scale and conditions of service are not affected by the transfer
The transfer will not be considered as interruption of services
In case of employees coming under the category of workman as defined under the  the Corporation in the event of retrenchment will pay compensation on the basis that the services had been contin ued and had not affected by transfer
 The State Government issued directions dated October 29 1963 to the Corporation under Section 34 of the Act
Rele vant part of the directions is as under The members of the staff of the Madhya Bharat Roadways and Central Provinces Transport Services who have opted to serve under the Corporation in pursuance of the notices issued to them by the Commerce and Industry Department or any authority of the Madhya Bharat Road 332 ways and Central Provinces Transport Service shall be em ployed by the Corporation subject to such regulations as may be made by it under Section 452c of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950 Central Act LXIV of 1950 and subject to such assurance as may have been given to them by the State Government
 The Corporation framed regulations called The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations 1964
 Regulation 59 which provided the age of superannuation was as under Employees ofhe State Transport are liable to compulsory retirement on the date of their completion of fifty eight years of age unless specifically permitted by the Corpora tion to continue in service for a specified period thereaf ter but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years without the sanction of State Government
 The corporation issued a notice dated May 25 1983 to Dubey informing him that he was due to retire from service on June 30 1984 on attaining the age of 58 years
He chal lenged the said notice by way of a writ petition under Article 226227 of the Constitution of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur The High Court by its judgment dated April 26 1985 dismissed the writ petition
The present appeal by way of special leave petition is against the judgment of the High Court
The High Court following its earlier Division Bench judgment came to the conclusion that on August 31 1955 when the appellant became State Government employee his age of superannuation came to be governed by the statutory rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India operating in respect of the Government employees of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the age of retirement of the State servants under the said rules being 58 years the appellant was right ly retired
The appellant was in service of the company from 1947 to August 30 1955
Admittedly the age of superannuation of the company employees was 60 years
The Government of Madhya Pradesh took over the company with effect from August 31 1955 by a notification of the same date
The notification specifically stated that the existing staff of the company would not be adversely affected with regard to 333 their conditions of service
It is no doubt correct that on August 31 1955 rules were operating in respect of the State Government employees according to which the age of superan nuation was 58 years but the persons who were service with the company were taken into Government serving with a spe cific assurance that their conditions of service were not to be adversely affected
When the
State Government takes over a private company and gives an assurance of the types it is but fair that the State Government should honour the same
Thus the State Service rules which fixed the age of superannuation at 58 years could not be made applicable to the appellant and other employees of the taken over company
We therefore do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court
It was then urged that on the transfer of appellant s service to the Corporation he was governed by the Regula tions framed by the Corporation under the Act and Regulation 59 provided 58 years as the age of superannuation
We do not agree with the contention
The State Government issued directions under Section 34 of the Act which we have repro duced above
The said directions are binding on the corpora tion
This Court in The General Manager Mysore State Road Transport Corporation vs Devraj ors and another interpreting Section 34 of the Act held as under Directions given by the State Government are binding on the corporation and it cannot depart from any general instruc tions issued under sub section 1 of Section 34 except with the previous permission of the State Government
Such in structions have the force of law 
Therefore breach of the directions given by State Government in the matter of disciplinary action against the respondents was a breach of the statutory duty and made the action of the corporation amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
The State Government and also the Corporation had given assurance to the appellant and other employees who were transferred to the Corporation that their conditions of service would not be adversely affected
The said assurance was incorporated in the directions issued under the Act
The Corporation cannot frame regulations contrary to the direc tions issued by the State Government under Section 34 of the Act
The age of superannution which the appellant was enjoy ing under the State Government could not be altered to his disadvantage by the 334 Corporation
We are therefore of the view that Regulation 59 flamed by the Corporation was not applicable to the appellant
He was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years
We therefore allow the appeal with costs and set aside the judgment of the High Court
The appellant has already attained the age of 60 years
He is only entitled to two years emoluments
The respondents are directed to pay the same to the appellant within three months from today
We quantify the costs as Rs5000
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant Trust prepared a development scheme under the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act 1922 covering certain lands including that of the respond ents
Notice inviting objections was published in a dally Newspaper on 9th 16th and 23rd April 1976
It was also published in the Punjab Government Gazette on the 7th 14th and 21st May 1976
The last date for filing objections was 5th May 1976
Notices were also served on each person whose land was to be acquired in accordance with Section 36 of the Act
After completion of the acquisition formalities noti fication under section 42 of the Act was published on 26th March 1979
Respondent No 2 and others challenged the scheme noti fied under the Act by way of Writ Petitions on the ground that they could not file objections by 5th May 1976 since the notification was published in the Gazette only thereaf ter
The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the notification sanctioning the scheme
However it ob served that the appellant may publish the scheme again either amended or unamended under section 36 of the Act and proceed further in accordance with law
Against the said order Letters Patent Appeals were flied which were dis missed by the Division Bench
Appellant has preferred these appeals by special leave
On behalf of the appellant it was mainly contended that infirmity if any stemming form the non consideration of the objections and the sanction of the scheme by the Govern ment in ignorance of the fact stood cured by the provisions of section 422 of the Act
It was also contended that since Respondent No 2 and others had flied objections in response to individual notices they are debarred from raising objec tions against the proposed improvement scheme
228 On behalf of Respondents if was inter alia contended that due to non publication of the scheme in the Government Gazette before the expiry of the period of filing objections against the proposed scheme the valuable right of the respondents to file objections against the scheme has been done away with contrary to the mandatory provision con tained in section 36 of the Act
Allowing the appeals this Court HELD 1
It is incomprehensible to say that non observ ance of provisions of Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improve ment Trust Act 1922 by not publishing the notification in the Government Gazette before the expiry of the date for filing the objections renders the publication of the entire development scheme illegal and bad
234A 2
The legislative intent of provision of section 36 read with section 38 of the Act is to afford reasonable opportunity to the owners and occupiers affected by the proposed scheme to file objections not only against the scheme but also against the acquisition of their lands failing within the scheme and to achieve this purpose not only notifications in the Government gazette and newspaper are to be published but also individual notices on each of the person affected are to be served with details of the plots of land failing within the scheme and proposed to be acquired with a view to giving them adequate opportunity to file objections both against the scheme as well as against the proposed acquisition of their lands
233G H 3
In the instant case the development scheme was prepared by the appellant Trust and was notified in accord ance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Act
In so far as the publication of the scheme in the newspaper Tribune  in three consecutive weeks in April 1976 inviting objec tions thereto till 5th May 1976 is quite in accordance with the provisions of the said section
The Gazette Notification published in three consecutive weeks was however made after expiry of the period of filing objections against this scheme
Admittedly individual notices under section 38 of the said Act were duly served on all the owners and occupi ers of the land falling within the said scheme and purported to be acquired and respondent No 2 and others admittedly filed objections against the proposed acquisition of their land
The said objections were duly considered after hearing the respondent No 2 and others and notice was issued sanc tioning the scheme by the State Government
In these circum stances it does not lie in the mouth of respondent No 2 and others to challenge the scheme on the mere plea that the Gazette Notification was not duly published
233C F 229 Prof Jodh Singh  Ors
vs Jullundur Improvement Trust Jullundur and Ors  distinguished
This Court set aside the decision of the Single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench of the High Court 234D