Case: Takhatray Shivdatray Mankad Vs. State of Gujarat

2. The appellant had joined the service of the erstwhile State of Junagadh on August 1, 1934 that State merged into the State of Saurashtra on January 20, 1949. The appellant continued to remain in the service of that State having been confirmed as an Executive Engineer on September 24, 1956. On the merger of Saurashtra in the new bilingual State of Bombay on November 1, 1956, the appellant was absorbed in the service of the said State. On the bifurcation of the State of Bombay on May 1, 1960, he was assigned to the State of Gujarat and was absorbed as a permanent Executive Engineer there. On October 12, 1961 the State of Gujarat made an order retiring the appellant from the service with effect from January 12, 1962. On that date he had not attained the age of 55 years but he was about 53 years old. This order was made in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules 1959. The order of retirement was challenged by the appellant by means of a writ petition which was dismissed.

Court's reasoning:
The High Court rightly looked at the provisions of Section 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. It is provided thereby that nothing in the section shall be deemed to effect after the appointed day the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to the determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State. The proviso is important and lays down that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day to the case of any person referred in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) (of Sec. 115) shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. The case of the appellant fell within the proviso and it had, therefore, to be determined whether the conditions of service applicable to the appellant, immediately before the appointed day which admittedly were contained in the Saurashtra Rules had been varied to his disadvantage, and if so, whether the approval of the Central Government had been obtained.We find it difficult to concur with the view of the High Court. Rule 3 (i) of the Saurashtra Rules, if construed or interpreted in the manner in which it has been done by the High Court, would bring it into direct conflict with the law laid down by this Court in Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railways Maligaon, Pandu, 1964 (5) SCR 683   = (AIR 1964 SC 600  ), which is a judgment of a bench of seven judges of this Court.One of the matter which came up for consideration was the effect of a service rule which permitted compulsory retirement without fixing the minimum period of service after which the rule could be invoked. According to the observations of Venkatarama Ayyar, J., in State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi, 1958 SCR 571   = (AIR 1957 SC 892  ) the application of such a rule would be tantamount to dismissal or removal under Article 311 (2) of theprinciple is that the rule relating to compulsory retirement of a Government servant must not only contain the outside limit of superannuation but there must also be a provision for a reasonably long period of qualified service which must be indicated with sufficient clarity. To give an example, if 55 years have been specified as the age of superannuation and if it is sought to retire the servant even before that period it should be provided in the rule that he could be retired after he has attained the age of 50 years or he has put in service for a period of 25is well known that a law or a statutory rule should be so interpreted as to make it valid and not invalid. If this expression is confined to what was argued before the High Court, namely, that it gives power to the Government to allow a Government servant to remain in service even beyond the age of 55 years for special reasons the rule will not be rendered invalid and its validity will not be put in jeopardy. So construed it is apparent that the appellant could not have been retired compulsorily under the Saurashtra Rules before he had attained the age of 55 years. By applying the Bombay rule his conditions of service were varied to his disadvantage because he could then be compulsorily retired as soon as he attained the age of 50 years. As the previous approval of the Central Government was not obtained in accordance with the proviso to Section 115 (7) of the State Reorganisation Act 1956, the Bombay rule could not be made applicable to thenone of these documents were referred to before the High Court and in the presence of a clear concession by the learned Advocate General we see no justification for acceding to such a request.