Case: State of Rajasthan &amp; Another Vs. Rajendar Singh

contention that under those Regulations there was no power in the State Government to retire him compulsorily. And if the conditions of service applicable immediately before the reorganization were to be varied to his disadvantage, this could be done only with the previous approval of the Central Government. It is not shown to us that any such approval of the Central Government had been obtained. If as the respondent contends, there was no rule under the Central Civil Service Regulations which provided for compulsory retirement, his compulsory retirement under the Rajasthan Rules would amount to varying to his disadvantage the conditions of his service and hence the order was invalid. That position is not seriously contested on behalf of the State.6. A reference was made to Rajasthan Service (Protection of Service Condition) Rules, 1957. But apparently these rules which merely deal with the scales of pay, dearness allowance and leave and pension rules, though issued by the Central Government, do not contain any provision with regard to compulsory retirement. Therefore, the respondent is right in his submission that the necessary approval under the provisions of Section 115 had not been obtained.7. Therefore, the only question which remains to be considered is whether under the Central Civil Service Regulations the respondent could be compulsorily retired before the date of his superannuation. No specific rule was brought to our notice which authorised such action. Mr. Jain for the State, however, invited our attention to Articles 349-A, 349-AA, 465-A and 465-AA of the above regulations and his contention was that the respondent could be compulsorily retired in view of Note below Article 465-AA read with cl. (2) of that Article. Article 465-AA reads as follows:"For officers referred to in Article 349-AA the rule for the grant of retiring pension is as follows : -(1) An officer is entitled, on his resignation being accepted, to a retiring pension after completing qualifying service of not less than 30 years.(2) A retiring pension is also granted to an officer who is required by Government to retire after completing 25 years, qualifying service or more.Note:- Government retains an absolute right to retire any officer after he has completed 25 years qualifying service without giving any reasons, and no claim to special compensation on this account will be entertained. This right will not be exercised except when it is in the public interest to dispense with the further service of the officer."8. If this Article applied to the respondent, it is possible to argue for the State that it had the authority to retire him compulsorily after completion of 25 years of qualifying service. But as the Article itself shows it applied to officers referred to in Article 349-AA. That Article is as follows:"349AA. Article 349-A does - not apply to an Officer (1) who entered Government service on or after the 1st October, 1938 or (2) who having entered such service before that date, did not hold a lien on a permanent pensionable post before that date or (3) who is transferred on or after the 1st October, 1938 permanently from service under a State Government or a Local Fund administered by Government to service under the President and did not hold a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent pensionable post under the State Government or the Local Fund before that date.In the case of such officers the rules in Article 465-AA.....................replace the rules in Articles 465, 465-A......." It is clear from the above Article that Article 349-AA excludes certain category of officers to whom normally Article 349-A applied and to this category of officers Article 465-AA applied and not Articles 465 and 465A. The latter two Articles applied to the officers described in Article 349-A who had not been excluded therefrom under Article 349-AA."9. Article 349-A is as follows;"(1) The rule in Article.... 465A ... applies to officers (other than Military Officers and members of the Indian Civil Service) appointed substantively to the service or the appointments specified below who : -(a) joined these appointments after 29th August, 1919, or(b) were in service on the 29th August, 1919 but have definitely elected in writing with the permission of Government to come under them."Then follows a long list of departments, services and posts to which Article 349-A applied. One of them is the Police Department and the entry is as follows:The Police Department-officers of Indian Police, and Deputy Superintendents.10. The above will show that Article 349-A applied to the appointments in the Police Department but those appointments must be officers of Indian Police and Deputy Superintendents. Other Police personnel in the Police Department were not governed by Article 349-A. The respondent though appointed in the Police Department did not hold such a post and, therefore, Article 349-A had no application.11. Therefore since Art. 349-A did not apply to an appointment like that of the respondent, Art. 349-AA also did not apply to him because for the application of the latter Article it is essential that the officer must belong to a service or hold a post specifically mentioned in Art. 349-A. The respondent is, - therefore, right in contending that Article 349-AA does not apply to him and consequently Article 465-AA also.12. We thus come to the conclusion that there is no Article in the Central Civil Service Regulations providing for the compulsory retirement of a person like the respondent which would only mean that he shall retire on reaching the age of superannuation. It is not the case that the respondent who was 46 years old at the time of the Order had reached the age of superannuation. To apply to him the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 for the purpose of compulsory retirement would amount to varying his condition of service to his disadvantage and since there was no previous approval of the Central Government, the Order of the State Government must be held to be bad. The High Court was, therefore, right in allowing the respondents petition and the present appeal fails.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. The above will show that Articleapplied to the appointments in the Police Department but those appointments must be officers of Indian Police and Deputy Superintendents. Other Police personnel in the Police Department were not governed by ArticleThe respondent though appointed in the Police Department did not hold such a post and, therefore, Articlehad no application.11. Therefore since Art.did not apply to an appointment like that of the respondent, Art.also did not apply to him because for the application of the latter Article it is essential that the officer must belong to a service or hold a post specifically mentioned in Art.The respondent is,therefore, right in contending that Articledoes not apply to him and consequently Articlealso.12. We thus come to the conclusion that there is no Article in the Central Civil Service Regulations providing for the compulsory retirement of a person like the respondent which would only mean that he shall retire on reaching the age of superannuation. It is not the case that the respondent who was 46 years old at the time of the Order had reached the age of superannuation. To apply to him the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 for the purpose of compulsory retirement would amount to varying his condition of service to his disadvantage and since there was no previous approval of the Central Government, the Order of the State Government must be held to be bad. The High Court was, therefore, right in allowing the respondents petition and the present appeal fails.