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

2. The respondent had been appointed as a Constable in the State of Ajmer on the 8th November, 1939 in the Force then known as His Excellency the Crown Representatives Police. On the 1st January, 1947 he was promoted as a Head Constable in that Force. After Independence the Police Force was designated as Central Reserve Police. By an Order dated December 25, 1951 the respondent was promoted to the rank ofand was transferred to the Government Railway Police, Ajmer and continued in the said post upto March 16, 1953. Thereafter he was selected for training to the then Ajmer Armed Constabulary which was raised on lines of the Central Reserve Police but he continued to hold his substantive post ofin the Ajmer Armed Constabulary Force.Later he was asked to officiate in the post of Inspector in the said Force and held the post upto the year 1956. On reorganization in 1956 Ajmer, which was a part C State, was integrated into the State of Rajasthan. Later he was reverted from his officiating post of Inspector of Police to the post ofagainst which Order the respondent made representations to the Government. Thereafter, successive departmental enquiries were held against him but by an order dated July 27, 1965 he was granted a selection grade promotion retrospectively with effect from December 26, 1962. On August 27, 1965 he was served with a notice directing his compulsory retirement from December 2, 1965. The respondent was at that time 46 years of age which was not the age of superannuation. The respondent filed the Writ Petition, out of which the present appeal arises, complaining that the Rule for compulsory retirement, namely Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, did not apply to him and, therefore, the termination of his service was unconstitutional. The High Court accepted his contention relying upon a previous decision of that Court in Karam Chand Bhandari v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Writ Petn. No. 355 of 1962, D/

Reasoning:
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.