Supreme Court of India
GOVT. OF TAMIL NADUversusP.A. MANICKAM ETC.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 326
- Decided
- 27 February 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
Fundamental Rule 56(d) merely provides a starting point for compulsory retirement after age 50 or 25 years of service, and the Government Order’s direction to forward cases for review does not impose a mandatory deadline; therefore the High Court’s presumption of no ground for retirement is untenable.
Summary
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 that failure to refer a case to the committee created a presumption that there were no grounds for retirement, ordering reinstatement with benefits. The Supreme Court examined the language of Rule 56(d) and the Government Order, concluding that the rule only sets a starting point for retirement and does not impose a terminus‑ad‑quem; the direction to send cases for review does not require the retirement decision to be taken before the stipulated dates. Consequently, the High Court’s view was overruled, the appeals were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the respondents’ writ petitions were dismissed without an order as to costs.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of non‑referral of a compulsory retirement case to the review committee six months before the employee attains the age of 50 years or completes 25 years of service?
- Does the Government Order No. 761 create a mandatory deadline (terminus ad quem) for the retirement decision under Fundamental Rule 56(d)?
- How should Explanation‑II to Rule 56(d) regarding the three‑month notice be interpreted?
- Whether excess benefits paid on the basis of the High Court’s order can be recovered.
Legislation cited
Subjects
compulsory retirementFundamental Rule 56(d)review committeegovernment orderservice lawpublic interestprocedural fairness
Judgment
GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU A
v.
P.A. MANICKAM ETC.
FEBRUARY 27, 1996
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND B.L. HANSARIA. JJ.] B
Fundamental Rule 56(d) : Explanation II.
Se1vice law-Compuls01y retirement-G.O.Ms. No. 761 Public (Ser-
vices A) Depa1tlnent dated 19.3.1973-Review Committee:,~Procedure to be C
fallowed for sc1utiny in matters relating to compuls01y retirement-Employees
compuls01ily retired in public interest-Matter not refe1Ted to Review Commit-
tee six months before the employee attained the ·age of 50 years or completed
25 years of se1vice in accordance with Govemment instntctions-Chal-
lenge-High Cowt holding that there was a duty cast on the Head of
Dep01tment to consider eve1y one of the cases of the employees who were due D
for review in accordance with instmctions-lf an officer's name was not sent
to the Review Committee lzis name cannot be sent Jar con!)ideration for
compuls01y retirement-Consequently it directed reinstatement of employees
with consequential benefits-State appeaf--Held view taken by High Court
cannot be sustained-Held the rule presC1ibes a st01ting point i.e. attaining the E
age of fifty years or completion of 25 years .wvice-It does not provide a
temzinu ad quem-Govemment can consider premature appointment at any
time after the stmting point-Direction to Head of Dep01tment is only to send
cases for review and not to cal7)' out and complete the review before presc1ibed
dates.
F
Union of India & Ors. v. Nasinniya Ahmadmiya Chauhan, (1994]
Supp. 2 SCC 537, referred to.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam & Ors., [1978] 1 SCR
521, distinguished. G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 352 of
1996 Etc. Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.84 of the Madras High
Court in W.A. No. 143 of 1981. H
1137
1138 0 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.
A A. Mariarputham for the Appellant.
V. Balachandran, V. Ramasubramaniam, Mahabir Singh and V.
Balachandran for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B
C.A. Nos. 4159 and 4158 of 1996 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3843/86
& 4988/85 :)
Special leave granted.
C CA. No. 4126/85:
Learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondent in this
appeal has died and he has instructions to withdraw this appeal. This
appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
D This is a batch of appeals arising from judgment and orders of the
High Court of Madras. The principal judgment of the High Court was
delivered by a full Bench and that is the subject matter of C.A. No. 352/85.
In the other matters the Full Bench judgment was followed.
The respondent in each of these appeals was an employee of the
E
appellant, State on Tamil Nadu. He was compulsorily retired from service
in the public interest after he had attained the age of 50 years. He
challenged the order of retirement on the ground that the provisions of the
rule and the directioris of the State Government applicable to compulsory
retirement had not been followed. The Full Bench came to the conclusion
F that the case of the respondent had to be upheld and he was reinstated or
treated as reinstated, as the case might be, with consequential benefits.
The rule in question is Fundamental Rule 56(d), which reads thus:
"P.R. 56( d) : Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the
G appropriate authority shall if it is of the opinion
that it is in the public interest so to do, have the
absolute right to retire any Government servant by
giving him notice in writing or three months pay
and allowances in lieu of ·such notice, after he has
H attained the age of fifty years or after he has com-
GOVT. OF T.N. v. P.A. MANICKAM 1139
pleted twenty five years of qualifying service. Any A
Government servant who has attained the age of
fifty years or who has completed twenty-five years
of qualifying service may likewise retire from ser-
vice by giving notice of not less than three months
in writing to the appropriate authority."
B
The State Government, by G.O.Ms. No. 761 Public (Services A)
Department dated 19.3.1973, gave directions for the constitution of review
committees and the procedure to he followed for scrutiny in matters
relating to compulsory retirement. Clause 4 thereof reads thus.
c
"The Government also direct that cases coming up for retirement
during the first half year of any year shall be sent up for review
before the 1st July of the previous year. The case of persons who
are due for review in the second half of any year shall be sent
before the 1st January of the year.''
D
The High Court posed the question : what is the effect of not
referring the matter of his compulsory retirement to the review committee
six months before the employee attains the age of 50 years or completes
25 years of service. It held that there was a duty cast on the heads of
departments to consider every one of the cases of employees who were due E
for review in accordance with the instructions and, "in such circumstances
it shall be presumed that it an officer's name had not been sent up to the
review committee, the Heads of Departments and the Government con-
sidered that there were no grounds for sending up the proposal to the
review committee in respect of that officer .............. We are, therefore, of F
the opinion that if an officer's name who is due to attain the age of 50 years
or has completed 25 years of service had not been sent to the review
committee it shall be presumed that there was no ground for sending his
name for cqnsideration for compulsory retirement and that it is in those
circumstances the competent authority had not referred the matter to the
review committee." G
The High Court went on to say that "it may even be presumed that
there was an assessment in favour of further continuance of the officer and
any review subsequent to the attainment of 50 years of age shall be
considered to be a second review..............." H
,,
I
}
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.
A -On a plain reading of the rule and the instructions, the view taken
by the High Court cannot be sustained. The rule permits the appropriate
authority to retire any Government servant after he has attained the age of
50 years or after he has completed 25 years of qualifying service. The rule
prescribes a starting point, which is the attaining of the age of 50 years or
the completion of 25 years of service, but it does not prescribe a terminus
B ad quem. It is, therefore, open to the appropriate authority under the rule
to consider the case of a Government servant for premature retirement at
any time after the aforementioned starting points. The direction contained
in the Government Order aforementioned, even assuming that it is man-
datory, does not assist the respondents for the only direction is to the heads
c of departments to send up cases coming up for retirement for review :
those coming up for retirement during the first half of any year before 1st
July of the previous year and those due for retirement in the second half
of any year before 1st January of that year. The Clirection is not to carry
out and complete the review before such dates.
D
Learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to Explana-
tion-JI of the Fundamental Rule which states that the three months notice
may be given before the Government servant attains the age of 50 years
provided that the retirement takes place after he has attained that age. The
Explanation is only intended to enable the three months' notice to be given
E before an officer attains the age of 50 years so that he may be compulsorily
retired immediately he attains that age. It cannot be read as imposing any
condition that can assist the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the judg-
F ment of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Nasinniya Ahmadmiya
Chauhan, [1994] Suppl. 2 SCC 537. The case dealt with a rule and Govern-
ment instructions similar to those aforementioned. This Court held that a
Government servant could not say that, though the order of retirement was
justified on the basis of the service record, it was liable to be quashed
since tht:<re was a violation of the Government instructions. The Govern-
G ment instructions were only guidelines h~id down by the Government.
Learned counsel for the respondent cited the judgment in State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam & Ors., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 521. The
rule with· which the· Court was concerned was similar to the provisions of
H Fundamental Rule 56(d), but the instructions issued by the Government of
GOVT.OFT.N.v. P.AMANICKAM 1141
India in that case stated : A
"Six months before an officer attains the age of 55, his record
should be carefully examined by the State Government, or if the
officer is serving under the Central Government, by the Central
Government, and a provisional judgment formed whether he
should be retired on attaining the age of 55 years." B
This Court said that the correct position that emerged from the rule read
with the procedural instructions was : "Once a review has taken place and
no decision to retire on that review has been ordered by the Central
Government, the officer gets a lease in the case of 50 years upto the next C
barrier at 55 and, if he is again cleared at that point, he is free and
untrammelled upto 58 which is his usual span of the service career."
It will have been noticed that the Government instructions in Nigam's
case were that the record of the officer should be examined before he
attained the stated age and it was therefore that this Court held as it did. D
In the case before us the instructions are not that the service record should
be examined but that heads of departments should send up the service
record of officers who are about to reach the aforementioned starting
points before the stated dates.
In C.A. No. 352/85 this Court, when it granted special leave, noted E
that the respondent had attained the age of superannuation and it directed
-- that he would be entitled to all the necessary benefits flowing from the
impugned order and judgment irrespective of the result of the appeal. That
direction must stand.
F
We are of the view that, in the other appeals, if the respondents have
already been paid amounts in excess of what they should have received by
reason of this judgment, such excess shall not be recovered.
The appeals are allowed accordingly. The judgments and orders
under appeal are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents G
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
T.NA. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "compulsory retirement"Sign in to search