STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.versusC.P. SINGH & ORS.

                         [2014] 5 S.C.R. 46


A                 STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
                                  v.
                         C.P. SINGH & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 1195 of 2007)
                          APRIL 04, 2014
B
         [ANIL R. DAVE AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

        Service Law - Retirement - Retirement age -
    DetE~rmination of - Applicable Rules - Respondent No. 1
C appointed initially in the State of Ajmer and governed by the
    Central Civil Service Regulations - State of Ajmer integrated
    with the State of Rajasthan in the year 1956 whereupon
    respondent no. 1 absorbed in the serv;ces of the State of
    Rajasthan - Respondent no. 1 exercised option ulr. 11 of the
D   1957 Rules and elected to be governed, as regards leave and
    pension, by the rules applicable to him immediately before
    the appointed day i.e. the Central Civil Service Regulations
    - Subsequently however, in 1974, respondent no.1 made to
    retire on attaining the age of 55 years as provided under the
E   1951 Service Rules - Whether respondent No.1 entitled to
    continue in service 'upto the age of 58 years i.e., the age of
    retirement as per the Central Civil Service Regulations - Held:
    Since Respondent No. 1 opted for the Central Civil Service
    Regulations as a whole, his retirement benefits had to be
F   governed by the provisions contained in the said Regulations
    including the age of retirement as applicable at the relevant
    date when he could be retired - Once the State of Rajasthan,
    with the previous approval of the Central Government, gave
    option to Respondent No. 1 not confined to any particular age
G   of retirement but to elect between the Central Civil Service
    Regulations and the Rules of 1951, Respondent No.1 cannot
    be subsequently deprived of the benefits of enhanced age of
    retirement accruing to him on account of amendments in the
    Regulations made in the year 1962 when Respondent No.1
H                                 46
  STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. v. C.P. SINGH & · 47
                   ORS.
was still in service - After amendment in the Regulations, his A
retirement age legally became 58 years - Central Civil
Service Regulations Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 -
Rajasthan Services (Protection of Service Conditions) Rules,
1957-r.11.
                                                           8
    Respondent No.1 was appointed initially in the State ·
of Ajmer and was governed by the Central Civil Service
Regulations. The State of Ajmer was integrated with the
State of Rajasthan w.e.f. 01.11.1956. Respondent no.1 was
absorbed in the services of the State of Rajasthan from
that date. He exercised option under Rule 11 of the C
Rajasthan Services (Protection of Service Conditions)
Rules, 1957 and elected to be governed, as regards leave
and pension, by the rules applicable to him immediately
before the appointed day i.e. the Central Civil Service
Regulations. Subsequently however, respondent no.1 · D
was· made to retire on attaining the age of 55 years on
19.6.1974 as provided under the Rajasthan Service
Rules, 1951.

     Respondent No.1 filed suit claiming that he was· E
illegally retired at the age of 55 years and also sought a
decree that he was entitled to continue in service till
30.6.1977 under the Central Civil Service Regulations. The •
suit was dismissed. Appeal filed by respondent no.1 was
also dismissed. Second Appeal preferred by Respondent F
No.1. was, however, allowed by the High Court. The High
Court decreed the suit of Respondent No.1 and declared
that he was entitled to continue in service upto the age
of 58 years, i.e., the age of retirement as per the Central
Civil Service Regulations. The High Court held that
though Immediately prior to re-organisation of State of G
Rajasthan, i.e., 30.10.1956, the age of superannuation
under the Regulations was also 55 years but on account
of amendment in the year 1962 it had been raised to 58
years and, therefore, in the year 1974 when the State of
                                                              H
    48      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 5 S.C.R.

A   Rajasthan decided to consider case of Respondent No.1
    for retirement he should have been given the benefit of
    provisions in the Regulations as existing on that date and
    not provisions in the Rules of 1951. Hence the present
    appeal.
B
         Dismissing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1. A perusal of the judgment and order under
    appeal shows that the High Court noticed the relevant
    facts correctly and, on the basis of admitted facts,
c   decided the question of law in favour of Respondent
    No.1 by holding that the option in respect of leave and
    pension exercised by Respondent No.1 made the Central
    Civil Service Regulations applicabl.e to his service
    conditions relating to pension and, therefore, he could
D   not have been retired on the basis of service conditions
    with regard to pension in the Rajasthan Service Rules,
    1951. [Para 7] [52-D-F]

        2. The State of Rajasthan itself framed the Rajasthan
    Services (Protection of Service Conditions) Rules, 1957
E
    and granted wide and comprehensive option to
    Respondent No.1 to elect either to be governed by the
    Rules applicable to him immediately before the appointed
    day or the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 in respect of
    leave and pension. The option was not limited to any
F   specific provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations
    relating to pension or those in the Rajasthan Service
    Ru.les, .1951. Since Respondent No.1 opted for the
    Regulations as a whole, his retirement benefits had to be
    governed by the provisions contained in the Regulations
G   including the age of retirement as applicable at the
    relevant date when he could be retired. His other
    pensionary benefits would also be governed by the
    provisions of the Regulations including amendments
    made therein. [Para 1O] [53-H; 54-A-C]
H
  STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. v. C.P. SINGH &               49
                   ORS.
     3. If it is held that the age of retirement mentioned in   A
the Regulations on 30.10.1956 would govern persons like
Respondent No.1 and others governed by the
Regulations independently of any option would have
different age of retirement after 1962 amendment, it would
lead to inequity as well as denial ·of equality amongst         B
persons who are admittedly to be governed· by the
Regulations. It would be unreasonable to hold that since
a class of employees had opted for the Regulations, _they
would not get the benefit of its amendments and would
retire at 55 years whereas another class of employees           c
would have the benefit of retiring at 58 years of age on
account of amendment in the year 1962. [Para 11] [54-D-
F]
    4. A careful appraisal of the wordings in Rule 11 of
the Rajasthan Services (Protection of Service · D
Conditions) Rules, 1957 also supports the said
conclusion. The option for the. rules applicable to the
employee immediately before the appointed day does not
contain any restriction that the option shall be to such
rules exc_luding the one providing for age of retirement E
or only as they stood on a particular day. The clause
'immediately before the appointed day' occurring after the
clause 'rules applicable to him' clearly relates to the word
'applicable' and it cannot be read to mean the rules. as
'existing' before the appointed day. The elected rules F
cannot be restricted for any good reasons only to the
provisions existing in ttie past on the appointed day so
as to exclude any amendment made in such rules during
the service of the concerned employee. In fact, the
elected pension rules are to govern the concerned G
employee in future also. [Para 12] [54-G-H; 55-A-C]
     5. Once the State of Rajasthan·, with the previous
approval of the Central Government, gave an option to
Respondent No.1 not confined to any particular age of
retirement but to elect between the Central Civil Service       H
    50        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A   Regulations and the Rules of 1951, Respondent No.1
    cannot be subsequently deprived of the benefits of
    enhanced age of retirement accruing to him on account
    of amendments in the Regulations made in the year 1962
    when Respondent No.1 was still in service. After that
s   amendment in the Regulations, his retirement age legally
    became 58 years. [Para 13] [55-E-FJ

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    1195 of 2007.

C       From the Judgment and Order dated 19.03.2004 of the
    Single Bench of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur
    Bench at Jaipur S.S. Civil Second Appeal No. 136 of 1995.

         S.S. Shamshery, AAG , Sandeep Singh, Milind Kumar for
D   the Appellants.

        Rakesh K. Khanna, ASG, Mohit Nagar, M.P.S. Tomar,
    D.S. Mahra, Anil Shrivastav, Jyoti Dutt Sharma for the
    Respondents.

E        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. State of Rajasthan has
  preferred this Civil Appeal to assail the judgment and order
  dated 19.3.2004 in S.S. Civil Second Appeal No.136/1995. By
F the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the Second
  Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of Trial Court as
  well as the First Appellate Court and decreed the Suit of
  Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) with a finding that Respondent No.1
  had been illegally made to superannuate on 19.6.1974 at the
  age of 55 years, as prescribed under the Rajasthan Service
G Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1951'). The
  High Court has also declared that Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff)
  was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 58 years,
  i.e., the age of retirement as per the Central Civil Service
  Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). The
H consequent benefits like pay, increments and other service
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. v. C.P. SINGH &                       51
           ORS. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
benefits have also been granted to Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff).          A
     2. The essential facts relevant for deciding the issue
raised in this appeal are not in dispute as indicated hereinafter.
Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) was appointed initially in the State
of Ajmer and was governed by service conditions in the
                                                                         8
Regulations. The State of Ajmer was a Centrally Administered
Part 'C' State till its integration with the State of Rajasthan w.e.f.
01.11.1956. Respondent No.1 was absorbed in the services
of the State of Rajasthan from that date as Cane Development
Assistant. Thus, his service at the time of re-organisation came
to be governed generally by Rules of 1951. As provided under             C
these Rules, Respondent No.1 was made to retire on attaining
the age of 55 years on 19.6.1974.

      3. Respondent No.1 filed Suit No.89/1976 at Jaipur
claiming that he was illegally retired at the age of 55 years and        D
also sought a decree that he is entitled to continue in service
till 30.6.1977 under the Regulations and was entitled to
consequential benefits of pay, increments, seniority, promotions
etc. On contest made by the State of Rajasthan, the Suit was
dismissed with a finding that the services of Respondent No.1            E
(Plaintiff) were governed by the Rules of 1951 which prescribed
the age of retirement as 55 years.

     4. On facts, there was no dispute at any stage of the Suit
that Respondent No.1 was entitled to exercise option under
Rule 11 of Rajasthan Services (Protection of Service                     F
Conditions) Rules, 1,957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules
of 1957') and he exercised that option and elected to be
governed, as regards leave and pension, by the rules
applicable to him immediately before the appointed day, i.e.,
the Regulations in place of the Rules of 1951. The relevant part         G
of Rule 11 is as follows :
     "11. Leave and Pension Rules.-As regards leave and
     pension a Government servant may exercise option of.
     electing either the rules applicable to him immediately H
    52       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A        before the appointed day or rules incorporated in the
         Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

                    "
       5. The learned Munsif, however, came to the view that the
B option given by the Plaintiff related only to leave and pension
  and not to retirement or age of retirement. He came to such a
  view because Rule 11 begins with the words - "As regards
  leave and pension" and omits to mention - "age of retirement".

c        6. Respondent No.1 's Regular First Appeal No.192/1980
    came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur
    City, Jaipur on 17.12.1994 and the view of the Trial Court was
    upheld. Second Appeal preferred by Respondent No.1 was,
    however, allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment
0   and order dated 19.3.2004.

       7. A perusal of the judgment and order under appeal
  shows that the High Court has noticed the relevant facts
  correctly and, on the basis of admitted facts, has decided the
  question of law in favour of Respondent No.1 by holding that
E the option in respect of leave and pension exercised by
  Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) made the Regulations applicable
  to his servi~e conditions relating to pension and, therefore, he
  could not have been retired on the basis of service conditions
  with regard to pension in the Rules of 1951. The High Court
F noted that though immediately prior to re-organisation of State
  of Rajasthan, i.e., ~0.10.1956, the age of superannuation und~r
  the Regulations was also 55 years but on account of
  amendment in the year 1962 it had been raised to 58 years
  and, therefore, in the year 1974 when the State of Rajasthan
G decided to consider case of Respondent No.1 for retirement
  he should have been given the benefit of provisions in the
  Regulations as existing on that date and not provisions in the
  Rules of 1951.

         8. On behalf of the Appellants, the simple contention is that
H
    STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. v. C.P. SINGH &                    53
            ORS. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

  the option under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1957 should be              A
  confined to the benefits of pension under the Regulations aione
  and not to the age of retirement. In other words, the age at which
  Respondent No.1 was to be retired under the Reglllations
  should have been ignored and for this purpose the age of             \
  superannuation in the Rules of 1951 alone should have been           B
  held to be applicable. In the alternative, it has also been
  submitted that since the age of superannuation immediately
· before the re-organisation of State of Rajasthan even under the
  Regulations was 55 years, Respondent no.1 should not have
  been allowed benefit of enhanced age of superannuation on            c
  account of subsequent amendment in the Regulations made in
  the year 1962.

      9. To the contrary, it has been submitted on behalf of
 Respondent No.1 that proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 115
 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956 protected the                 D
 conditions of service applicable immediately before the
 appointed day and they could not be varied to the disadvantage
 of Respondent no.1 except with the previous approval of the
 Central Government. It has further been submitted that Rules
 of 1957 were. framed· under Article 309 of the Constitution of        E
 India under directions issued by the Central Government under
 Section 117 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956 and the
 option under Rule 11 with regard to leave and pension rules
 was by way of protecting the conditions of service applicable
 to Respondent No.1 immediately before the appointed day.              F
 Once Respondent No.1 exercised his option and elected to be
 governed by tHe Rules regarding pension applicable to' him
 immediately before the appointed day, i.e., the Regulations, the
 age of retirement prescribed under the Regulations like other
 pensionary provisions would continue to govern him as per the         G
 Regulations amended fro·m time to time till the age of
 superannuation as per the Regulations which, since the year
 1962 came to be 58 years;                        ·
      10. On considering the rival submissions, we find merit in
 the case of Respondent No.1 because the State of Rajasthan            H
    54       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A itself framed Rules of 1957 and granted wide and
  comprehensive option to Respondent No.1 to elect either to be
  governed by the Rules applicable to him immediately before
  the appointed day or the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 in
  respect of leave and pension. The option was not limited to any
B specific provision in the Regulations relating to pension or those
  in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Since Respondent No.1
  opted for the Regulations as a whole, his retirement benefits
  had to be governed by the provisions contained in the
  Regulations including the age of retirement as applicable at the
c relevant date when he could be retired. His other pensionary
  benefits would also be governed by the provisions of the
  Regulations including amendments made therein and on this
  latter aspect there is no dispute.
        11. If the submission advanced on behalf of the Appellants
D is accepted and if it is held that the age of retirement mentioned
  in the Regulations on 30.10.1956 would govern persons like
  Respondent No.1 and others governed by the Regulations
  independently of any option would have different age of
  retirement after 1962 amendment, would lead to inequity as well
E as denial of equality amongst persons who are admittedly to
  be governed by the Regulations. It would be unreasonable to
  hold that since a class of employees had opted for the
  Regulations, they would not get the benefit of its amendments
  and would retire at 55 years whereas another class of
F employees would have the benefit of retiring at 58 years of age
  on account of amendment in the year 1962.
       12. A careful appraisal of the wordings in Rule 11 of the
  Rules of 1957 also supports the conclusions indicated above.
G The option for the rules applicable to the employee immediately
  before the appointed day does not contain any restriction that
  the option shall be to such rules excluding the one providing
  for age of retirement or only as they stood on a particular day.
  The clause 'immediately before the appointed day' occurring
H after the clause 'rules applicable to him' clearly relates to the
  STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. v. C.P. SINGH &                  55
          ORS. [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]

word 'applicable' and it cannot be read to mean the rules as A
'existing' before the appointed day. The elected rules cannot
be restricted for any good reasons only to the provisions
existing in the past on the appointed day so as to exclude any
amendment made in such rules during the service of the
concerned employee. In fact, the elected pension rules ar.e to B
govern the concerned employee in future also. If the Rules of
1951 will apply to the concerned employee who opts for the
same along with amendments made in the future, there can be
no rationality in the view that the other rules applicable before
the appointed day shall apply but without any amendments even c
when such amendments are made during the service period
of the employee opting for the same.

     13. The Appellant-State of Rajasthan may be correct in its
submission that the proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 115
of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956 does not help D
Respondent No.1 directly because the age of retirement under
the Regulations even before the appointed day was only 55
years and that has not been varied to his disadvantage.
However, once the State of Rajasthan, with the previous
approval of the Central Government, gave an option to E
Respondent No.1 not confined to any particular age of
retirementbut to elect between Regulations and the Rules of
1951, Respondent No.1 cannot be subsequently deprived of
the benefits of enhanced age of retirement accruing to him on
account of amendments in the Regulations made in the year F
1962 wheh Respondent No.1 was still in service. After that
amendme'nt in the Regulations, his retirement age legally
became 58 years. As discussed above, there is no good
reason to take a view contrary to that of the High .Court which
has answered the substantial question of law involved in the G
Second Appeal appropriately and correctly.

    14. In the facts of the case, we find no merit in the Civil
Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed but without costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                           Appeal dismissed.   H