BRAHMANANDA SATAPATHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a permanent Government servant holding the post of Personal Aesietant to the Director of Industries. He attained the age of 55 on 15 July 1964. On 31 May 1965, a notice was served on the petitioner that he would retire from service on 30 August 1965. The petitioner challenges the order as being void and without Jurisdiction inasmuch as his case had been reviewed by the Government before he attained the age of 65 and he was not compulsorily retired.

(2.) THE main point urged by Sri Misra is that after the petitioner attained the age of 55, he cannot be made to retire with three months notice as each a compulsory retirement amounts to penalty. Reliance is place on Rule 13, of (vii), Explanation (g) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Ruler, 1662. The rule rune thus: 13. Nature of penalties.-The following penalties may. for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servent, namely:

(3.) SRI Misra contends that Rule 13 (vii) clearly lays down that compulsory retirement is a penalty.