Fundamental Rules

The appellant, a lecturer appointed in 1965, received a solitary adverse confidential report for the academic year 1987‑88, which he claimed was made in mala‑fide by the principal. He sought to have the remarks expunged, was promoted to Reader in 1991, but was compulsorily retired on 28 May 1991 under Rule 71(a) of the…

The Supreme Court examined the “sealed‑cover” procedure used when a government employee’s promotion is pending but disciplinary or criminal proceedings are underway. It held that the procedure can be invoked only after a charge‑memo or charge‑sheet has been served, and that preliminary investigations do not trigger it.…

Two former judicial officers of Jharkhand challenged orders of compulsory retirement issued by the High Court’s Screening and Standing Committees, alleging that the committees ignored later service records, that promotions should erase earlier adverse entries, and that the retirements were not in public interest. The S…

The respondents, employees of the Tamil Nadu government, were compulsorily retired after attaining the age of 50 years under Fundamental Rule 56(d). The State Government had issued G.O. No. 761 (1973) directing that cases be sent to a review committee six months before the retirement point. The Madras High Court held t…

The respondent, an Assistant Engineer in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, was compulsorily retired under Fundamental Rule 56(j) after a high‑powered committee found adverse confidential reports for the financial years 1970‑71 and 1971‑72, indicating a decline in his work standards. He challenged the retirement in t…

Two government servants, including K.R. Tahiliani, were compulsorily retired under Rule 56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules after turning 50 while serving in an officiating capacity in Class I or Class II posts. They challenged the retirements through petitions under Article 226, and the Union appealed to the Supreme Cou…

A.L. Ahuj a, an engineer in the Central Public Works Department, was compulsorily retired under Rule 56(j)(i) of the Fundamental Rules while holding an officiating Class II post. He challenged the retirement, arguing that the earlier Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. K.R. Tahiliani held that Rule 56(j)(i) doe…

R.E. Sharma, a senior Bihar government officer with a 30‑year exemplary record, was compulsorily retired under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code on the ground of public interest after turning 50. Sharma contended that the retirement was a punitive measure based on alleged financial irregularities, that he was de…

The respondent challenged the election of the appellant, Tek Chand, alleging that the independent candidate Nikka Ram's nomination was improperly accepted because he was allegedly holding an office of profit and was a BJP/RSS activist whose votes allegedly cut into the respondent's tally, thereby materially affecting t…

The appellant, a senior judicial officer, was compulsorily retired at age 55 under Fundamental Rule 56(3)(a) after a High Court Full Court meeting decided to screen officers for promotion. The High Court recommended his retirement and denied promotion, relying on some adverse confidential entries from about twenty year…

The Supreme Court entertained a public interest writ under Article 32 challenging large‑scale out‑of‑turn allotments of government residential quarters in Delhi, alleged to be made on a ‘Special Compassionate Ground’ and constituting a housing scam. A three‑member Gupta Committee examined the allotments and categorized…

The respondents, originally appointed as Junior Basic Training (JBT) teachers in the Haryana Education Department, acquired B.A. and B.Ed. qualifications during service and were subsequently granted the grade of Social Study Master along with an increment under Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1969. The Sta…

Gurmail Singh, a senior employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB), was promoted to Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in 1986 and later opted for UDC as his induction post, thereby losing the revised Lower Division Clerk (LDC) pay scale that his junior colleagues received. He filed a writ petition challenging the B…

The respondent, a Deputy Director in the Madhya Pradesh Department of Geology and Mining, was compulsorily retired under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules after a Screening Committee, which included the Head of Department S.S. Dave, recommended his retirement. The respondent challenged the order by filing a writ petitio…

Dr. L.P. Agarwal was appointed Director of AIIMS for a five‑year term or until he turned 62, whichever came first, and was confirmed in the post in February 1980. In November 1980 the Institute‑Body retired him immediately in the public interest, paying three months' salary in lieu of notice. He challenged the retireme…

The appellant, D.D. Mehta, a government servant appointed by the Comptroller & Auditor General, was compulsorily retired under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules by an order issued by the Director of Commercial Audit. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Director of Commercial Audit was a competent autho…

The Government of Andhra Pradesh appealed against an order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal that had granted parity of pay to senior Junior Analysts who claimed that their juniors were drawing higher scales. The seniors argued that Article 39(A) of the Constitution required equal pay, while the juniors ear…

The appellant, a temporary government servant, had rendered over 20 years of service but was compulsorily retired by the Government under Rule 56(J)(ii) of the Fundamental Rules while a disciplinary appeal was pending. He challenged the retirement order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held that compul…

The Andhra Pradesh government reduced the superannuation age for its employees from 58 to 55 years in 1983 and later attempted to reverse the decision by raising it back to 58 years through Ordinance No.24 of 1984 and Act No.3 of 1985. A large number of employees who had been forced to retire under the 55‑year rule cha…

M.N. Sundarajan, a Section Officer in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat, was compulsorily retired on 2 March 1976 under Fundamental Rule 56(d). He challenged the retirement in the Madras High Court, arguing that the Review Committee which considered his case was improperly constituted, as the Government Order of 19 March 1973…

Baikuntha Nath Das, a pharmacist appointed in 1951, was compulsorily retired in 1976 under the first proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code, which corresponds to Fundamental Rule 56(j). He challenged the order, alleging that adverse remarks in his confidential character rolls were never communicated, that he …

Baldev Raj, an Accounts Officer appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, was compulsorily retired on 27 August 1975 under F.R. 56(j)(i) by the Accountant General in the name of public interest. He challenged the retirement, arguing that the Accountant General was not the "appropriate authority" and that the de…

The Andhra Pradesh Government issued the Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1969 and later an executive order fixing the pay of employees placed in the Selection Grade so that it would not exceed the pay of their seniors in higher posts. The High Court struck down this order as violative of Articles 14, 16 and Fundamental Ru…

Shaik Ali, a Class III railway employee, was suspended after a confrontation with a Divisional Safety Officer and subsequently ordered to retire prematurely under Rule 2046(h)(ii) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, despite not having reached the required age of 55. The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside t…

D.D. Suri, an emergency recruit from the open market, was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in 1950 and was assigned a year of allotment of 1944 by the Government of India, affecting his seniority. He sought a higher year of allotment (1942), additional pay for holding two posts simultaneously, and p…

The case concerned assistant teachers of Bihar's Nationalised Schools whose pay on promotion had been fixed under the now‑defunct Fundamental Rule 22‑C (FR.22‑C). The State of Bihar issued an office order in 2000 directing re‑fixation of pay under the amended provisions FR.22(1)(a)(1) and FR.22(1)(a)(2) and recovery of…

The respondent, a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, was invalidated after contracting pyogenic meningitis and suffering bilateral deafness while on duty. He applied for an invalid pension but was denied on the ground that he had not completed the ten years of qualifying service required under the Central C…

The petitioners, senior judicial officers in Bihar, challenged a High Court order that denied them the benefit of extending their superannuation age from 58 to 60 years, arguing that the Supreme Court’s directions in the All India Judges' Association cases automatically conferred such a right. The Court held that the S…

The respondents, former armed forces personnel, were re‑employed as whole‑time officers in the National Cadet Corps (NCC) and were granted permanent commissions under a Government order dated 23 May 1980, which fixed their retirement age at 55 (extendable to 57). They later sought to remain in service until the age of …

Syed Yousuddin Ahmed, a Deputy Executive Engineer of the Andhra Pradesh Government, claimed that four incentive increments (personal pay) he received should be counted as part of his emoluments for pension calculation. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal held that the incentive increments were part of his emolum…

The respondent, Ashoke Kumar Banerjee, was a Junior Engineer in the CPWD. After completing 15 years of service, he was granted the Assistant Engineer pay scale on a personal basis under an Office Memorandum and his pay was fixed using FR 22(1)(a)(i). Later, when he was functionally promoted to Assistant Engineer, he so…

Four employees of the Postal Services Department were transferred from the Agartala Division to the Meghalaya Division on the ground of alleged misbehaviour with a senior lady officer. They challenged the transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which did not interfere, and subsequently filed writ petitions…

The Supreme Court considered three appeals challenging the compulsory retirement of two Delhi Higher Judicial Service officers and one Delhi Judicial Service officer. The appellants argued that their cases could not be reconsidered before reaching the age of 55 after an earlier screening at age 50, that the Lt. Governo…

The State of Andhra Pradesh issued a Pay Revision Committee recommendation and Government Order No. 114 (1999) that revised pay scales would be notionally effective from 1 July 1998 with monetary benefits payable from 1 April 1999. Employees who retired between 1 July 1998 and 31 March 1999 claimed pension, gratuity an…

The respondents, Audit Officers on deputation, retired after 1 January 1986 but before the Office Memorandum of 14 April 1987 came into force. The Memorandum, issued to implement the Fourth Pay Commission recommendations, retrospectively redefined "emoluments" for pension calculation as basic pay excluding special pay …

Izhar Hussain, a clerk in the Posts and Telegraph Department, was retired under Rule 2(2) of the Liberalised Pension Rules, 1950, which permits the Government to retire a servant at any time after completing 30 years of qualifying service. He challenged the retirement before the Allahabad High Court; the single judge d…

Harnam Singh, a government servant who joined in 1956, discovered that his date of birth recorded in his service book (20‑May‑1934) differed from that on his matriculation certificate (7‑Apr‑1938). He sought correction in 1991, just months before his scheduled superannuation, but the department rejected his request cit…

The respondent, Ajoy Kumar Patnaik, a Collector of Customs (Appeals), was compulsorily retired under Fundamental Rule 56(j) on the ground of "doubtful integrity" after a screening committee cited his misclassification of tariff items and disposal of appeals contrary to import policy, which allegedly benefitted dealers.…

S. Narayana, a senior assistant, was promoted and later appointed temporarily as an Extension Officer in the Andhra Pradesh Panchayati Raj Service. His services were regularised in the Extension Officer post, and his lien on the senior assistant post was terminated on the ground that he was not confirmed in that post. …

A.J. Joseph, a Head Compounder posted in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, appealed against the Government's refusal to grant him a higher scale of pay under Fundamental Rule 9(25) clause 7(iii). The Central Administrative Tribunal had held that prescribing a higher pay scale was a policy decision beyond its jurisdiction.…

The appellants, senior assistants of the Factories and Boilers Department, challenged Special Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 that allowed their transfer to higher posts in the Labour Department. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had declared those Rules void for violating the Presidential Order is…

The senior employee, M. Suryanarayana Rao, claimed that his pay should be stepped up to match that of his junior who had been given an ad‑hoc promotion on a long‑term basis within a different circle, resulting in the junior drawing a higher salary. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the stepping‑up, but the Un…

Farid Sattar, a Senior Accountant, sought a mutual transfer which was not permissible and was advised to apply for a unilateral transfer that required him to revert to the lower post of Accountant as a direct recruit, forfeiting his senior status. After the transfer his pay was mistakenly fixed at the higher Senior Acc…

The respondent, Abdul Rahman Khan, was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the erstwhile Nizam State on 10 March 1938 and later absorbed into the Central Government on 1 April 1950 as an Upper Division Clerk. The dispute centered on whether he should retire at the age of 58, as prescribed by Fundamental Rule 56(a) a…

Bihari Lal, an Assistant Commissioner in the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Department, was compulsorily retired under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules on the ground of persistent adverse remarks and being classified as an officer of a bad category. He challenged the order in the Allahabad High Court, which quashed the ret…

Shri Dulal Duti, a senior officer of the Indian Railway Stores Service, was served a compulsory retirement order dated 24 April 1990 after facing major penalty charge‑sheets. He challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking its q…

The employees of defence unit‑run canteens filed applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking benefits available to regular defence personnel, arguing that the canteens are part of the Canteen Stores Department (CSD) and thus under the Ministry of Defence. The Union of India contended that the …

C. Jacob, a former drill helper who joined service in 1967, was terminated in 1982 for unauthorized absence and private employment. After an 18‑year gap he filed representations in 2000 seeking reinstatement, which were rejected, leading him to file a writ petition for pension benefits. The High Court declared his term…

The case concerned scientists employed in DRDO, DAE and DOS who were granted a special pay of Rs 2,000 (effective from 1 Jan 1996) and Rs 4,000 (effective from 1 Jan 2006). The Union of India challenged the inclusion of this special pay in the definition of "pay" for computing pension under Fundamental Rule 9(21)(a)(i)…

Five Group B, C and D government employees posted in Nagaland claimed they were entitled to rent‑free furnished accommodation, which was not provided, and therefore sought compensation in lieu of such accommodation (licence fee and House Rent Allowance). The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the claim, relying on…

M.S. Bindra, a senior Indian Revenue Service officer, was compulsorily retired on the ground that his integrity was doubtful, based on three investigations cited by a Screening Committee. The Committee’s conclusions were challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal, leading to a pet…

The case concerned retired employees of the Overseas Communication Service who were transferred to Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (VSNL) and had opted to retain Central Government pension benefits. VSNL paid their pensions based on the IDA pay scales but applied Dearness Relief (DR) at Central Government (CDA) rates, result…

The respondents, who had been employed as mazdoors between 1961 and 1969, sought to have their dates of birth corrected in service records after receiving retirement notices in 1995, relying on Panchayat certificates and requesting a medical board assessment. The single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed …