Holding

An appointment as a paid apprentice on a permanent basis constitutes entry into government service on a permanent basis, attracting Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i) and entitling the appellant to superannuation at age 60.

Summary

M.P. Pradhan joined the Uttar Pradesh State Government as a paid apprentice on a permanent basis on 1 July 1937 and subsequently held various officiating posts before being appointed to the permanent post of Copyist on 1 August 1941. He retired in February 1976 at the age of 58 and claimed that, under Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i), he was entitled to remain in service until the age of 60 because his entry into government service was permanent and occurred before 31 March 1938. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected his claim, holding that his first permanent appointment was as Copyist in 1941, thus excluding him from the rule. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the service book entries and concluded that the initial appointment as a paid apprentice was indeed a permanent appointment, bringing him within the ambit of Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i). Consequently, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to continue in service until 60 years of age and ordered payment of two years' emoluments with all consequential benefits. The appeal was allowed and costs were awarded to the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether an appointment as a paid apprentice on a permanent basis before 31 March 1938 falls within the scope of Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i) for retirement at age 60.
Whether the appellant's first permanent appointment was as a paid apprentice in 1937 or as a Copyist in 1941.

Legislation cited

Fundamental Rule 56s. c(i)

Subjects

Fundamental Rule 56retirement agepermanent appointmentpaid apprenticecivil servicesuperannuationCentral Administrative Tribunalservice tenure

Judgment

M.P. PRADHAN
A v.
UN{ON OF INDIA & ORS.

FEBRUARY 16, 1990

B [KULDIP SINGH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]

Civil Services: Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i)-Retirement at the age "'
of 60 years-Applicability of-Joining as paid· apprentice on permanrnt
basis-Whether amounts to entering Government service on perman.ent
basis.

c Appellant joined State Government service, as paid apprentice on
1. 7.: H7. He held various posts and was promoted to the permanent
post of Copyist on 1.8.1941. Io March, 1943 he came to Government of
India service on deputation, and retired in 1976 on attaining the age of
58 years. Thereafter he moved the Central Administrative Tr11iuoal
D claiming that since he entered Government service on permanent basis
before 31.3.1938, he was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60
years, as per Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i).

Dismissing the application, the Central Administrative Tribunal
held that since the appellant was appointed on permanent basis to the
)
E post of Copyist on 1.8.41, he did not come within the purview of Fonda·
mental Right 56(c)(i). Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this
appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court,

F HELD: It is correct that from 1st of July, 1937 upto 1st of
August, 1941 the appellant has been shown in the service book to be
appointed in officiating capacity to various posts hut the fact remains
that his basic appointment as paid apprentice was permanent. The
finding of the Tribunal that the appellant was made permanent for the
first time as Copyist on 1st August, 1941 canot be accepted in the face of
G clear entries in the service book showing that he joined as paid
apprentice on permanent basis on lst of July, 1937. Joining as paid
apprentjce on permanent basis cannot be anything else but entering
Government service on permanent basis and since the entry was before }-
3 lst March, 1938, Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i) is a'ltracted and the appel-
lant is entitled to remain in Govf1'!!!111'11t service till the age of 60 years. [4120.F]
H

410
M.P. PRADHAN v. U.0.I [KULDIP SINGH, J] 411

[This court observed that since the appellant has already comp-
leted 60 years, he be paid two years emoluments with all consequential A
benefits including any enhancement in the fixation of pension and other
post-retirement benefits.][4I3D] l

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1899
of f989. B

) From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.87 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in T.A. No. T-322/
85 (cw 293/77).

Shankar Vaidyalingam and Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam for the C
Appellant.

B. Dutta, Govind Das, Mrs. Sushma Suri and Ms. Indra Sawhney
for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D

KULD1P SINGH, J. The question for our consideration in this
appeal is whether the appellant is governed by Fundamental Rule
56(c)(i) and as such entitled to superannuation at the age of 60 years.
J..._
F..undamental Rule 56(c)(i) is reproduced as under: E

"(c) A ministerial Government servant who entered

a 1
Government service on or before the 31st March, 1958 and
held on that date:

(i) a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post, or F
... shall retire from service on the afternoon of the 1st day
of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years."

The appellant joined service as paid apprentice in the Collecto.rate
of Etawah, Government of Uttar Pradesh on 1st July,.)937. On the
same day he was asked to officiate in the post of Arranger. He was sent G
back to the post of paid apprentice on 24th December, 1937 but was
again appointed as Arranger in officiating capacity on 3rd of January
-1 1938. While holding the post of paid apprentice he had been appointed
in various posts on officiating basis. He was finally promoted and
appointed to a permanent post of Copyist in a substantive capacity on
•• 1st of August, 1941. He came fo the Govenment of India on deputa- H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] 1 S.C.R.

A tion in March 1943 and thereafter retired from service on attaining the
age of 58 years in February 1976.

The appellant claimed that having entered Government service
on permanent basis before 31st March, 1938 he was entitled to con-
tinue in service till the age of 60 years under Fundamental Rule 56
B (c)(i) and his retirement on attaining the age of 58 years was illegal.
I
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
dismissed the application of the appellant holding that the appellant
was only an apprentice under training prior to 1st of August, 1941 and
as such was not holding any employment under the State on per-
manent basis. According to the Tribunal the appellant was appointed
to the Government service on permanent basis to the post of Copyist
c on !st of August, 1941 and as such he did not come within the purview
of Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i).

We have examined the admitted entries in the service book of
the appellant which are on the record. These entries show that the
D appellant joined service as JJaid apprentice on substantive permanent
basis on 1st of July, 1937. It is correct that from 1st of July, 1937 upto
!st of August, 1941 he has been shown in the service book to be
appointed in officiating capacity to various posts but the fact remains
that his basic appointment as paid apprentice was permanent. The
finding of the Tribunal that the appellant was made permanent for the
E first time as Copyist on 1st August, 1941 cannot be accepted in the face
of clear entries in the service book showing that he joined as paid
apprentice on permanent basis on 1st of July, 1937. Joining as paid
apprentice on permanent basis cannot be anything else but entering
Government service on permanent basis and since the entry was
before 31st March, 1938 Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i) is attracted and
F the appellant is entitled to remain in Government service till the age of
60 years.

In the reply affidavit on behalf of the respondents in the court
below, it-is staed as under:

G "The petitioner joined Government Service under
the provincial Government of Uttar Pradesh on 1. 7 .1937
against a post of paid apprentice. It appears there were a
few permanent posts of paid apprentice under the State
Government. Petitioner was appointed against one of them
in Collectorate, Etawah."
H
M.P. PRADHAN v. U.0.1 !KULDIP SINGH, J] 413

The respondents repeated their stand in the counter filed by A
them in this Court in the following terms:

"It is submitted that tbe petitioner joined Govern-
ment service under the Provincial Government of Uttar
Pradesh on 1. 7.1937 against a post of "Paid Apprentice". It
appear that there were a few permanent posts of paid B
apprentice under the State Government. The petitioner
was appointed against one of them in the Collectorate,
Etawah."

We are, therefore, of the view.that the Tribun.al erred in denying
the benefit of Fundamental Rule 56 (c)(i) to the appellant. We allow c
the appeal with costs and set aside tbe judgment of tbe Central
Administrative Tribunal under appeal and we hold that the appellant
was entitled to continue in Government service till he attained the age
of 60 years. The appellant has already completed 60 years and as such
he be paid two years emoluments with all consequential benefits
including any enhancement in the fixation of pension and other post D
retirement benefits. We quantify the costs as Rs.3,000.

G.N. Appeal allowed.