- (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Mysore by which that High Court disposed of several writ petitions in which the principal question at issue was a common question of law. The appellant was an officer of the old State of Mysore. After the States Reorganisation Act of 1956, he entered service of the new State of Mysore constituted under that Act. The question that has arisen is: what is the superannuation age of the appellant It is admitted that the appellant was entitled to the benefits of the services rules which obtained before his transfer to the new State of Mysore. The relevant rules are the Mysore Services Regulations as they stood on 1st November, 1956. According to the appellant the age of superannuation is 60 years while according to the respondent the age of superannuation is 55 years. Difficulty has arisen for two reasons. First, there are two versions of the pre-1966 Service Regulations, one to be found in the Seventh Edition of the Regulations published in 1945 and the other to be found in the Eighth Edition published in 1953. Secondly, there are three decisions of this Court, two of which namely M. Narasimhachar v. State of Mysore, (1960) 1 SCR 981 = (AIR 1960 SC 247) and State of Mysore v. Padmanabhacharya, 1966-1 SCR 994 = (AIR 1966 SC 602) interpreting Article 294 of the Eighth Edition have held that 55 years is the age of superannuation while the third decision in Union of India v. Sadasiva Murthy, Civil Appeals Nos. 476 to 478 of 1969 D/- 15-7-1969 (SC) dealing with Art. 305 of the Seventh Edition which incidentally corresponds to Art. 294 of the Eighth Edition has held that the age of superannuation is 60 years. According to the High Court the latest decision of this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 476 to 478 of 1969, D/- 15-7-1969 (SC) which has supported the petitioners' case of 60 years being the age of superannuation rested on the effect of Clause (c) of the old Article 305. On behalf of appellant, however, it was urged that the latest decision of this Court in Sadasiva Murthy's case is the correct decision to be followed in interpreting Article 294 of the Eighth Edition as well as Article 305 of the Seventh Edition.
(2.) It is necessary at the outset to set out Article 305 of the Seventh Edition as well as Article 294 of the Eighth Edition one after the other for making an effective comparison of these two Articles. It is also of some importance in this connection to set out the provisions of Article 428 of the Seventh Edition. Article 305 of the Seventh Edition: "(a) An officer in superior service, who has attained the age of fifty-five years, may be required to retire, unless Government considers him efficient, and permits him to remain in the service. But as the premature retirement of an efficient officer imposes a needless charge on the State, this rule should be worked with discretion. And in cases in which the rule is enforced, a statement of the reasons for enforcing it shall be placed on record. Note :- x x x x (b) :- x x x x "(c) The following ruling should be kept carefully in view in applying the rules regarding compulsory retirement - 'As some misapprehension appears to exist on the subject of the rule regarding the compulsory retirement of officers after the age of fiftyfive years, it is desirable to state that not only do Article 305 and Article 428 of these Regulations read together, not require the compulsory retirement of any efficient officer of whatever age, but that though the Articles authorise the Heads of Departments, at their discretion, to presume that an officer is inefficient at fiftyfive years of age conditionally, at sixty years of age absolutely, yet the whole tenor of the rules is that such presumption shall be exercised with careful consideration both for the individual who would suffer by being deprived of his appointment while capable of discharging its duties, and for the finances of the country, which would suffer were officers, still efficient prematurely thrown upon the pension list.'" Article 428 of the Seventh Edition : "If an officer in superior service, whose age is less than sixty years, is required to retire under Article 305 (a), the Head of his office must certify in the column for 'any other remarks', on the third page of the application for his pension, the cause of the applicant's inefficiency, and quote the order of Government or of any officer to whom power under Article 308 (a) (2) may have been delegated, sanctioning the applicant's retirement as superannuted. If the officer wishes to retire of his own accord under Article 310, the fact should be stated." Article 294 of the Eighth Edition: "294 (a) - A Government servant in superior or inferior service, who has attained the age of fifty-five years may be required to retire, unless the Government considers him efficient, and permits him to remain in the service. But as the premature retirement of an efficient Government servant imposes a needless charge on the State, this rule should be worked with discretion. And in cases in which the rule is enforced, a statement of the reasons for enforcing it shall be placed on record. Note 1 - It is trusted that the Heads of Departments will always be deposed to extend to this rule a very liberal interpretation, so that the State may, in no case, be deprived of the valuable experience of really efficient Government servants by the untimely exercise of the powers of compulsory retirement on pension. * * * * Note 2 - (b) These rules apply to all Government servants without reference to their nationality. (c) Heads of Departments are authorised to retire all non-gazetted Government servants under them when they attain the age of fifty-five, and to grant extension of service for a period not exceeding six months only in very exceptional cases if the Government servant is considered to be efficient and such extension is considered absolutely necessary in the interest of public service. In no case, extension be given beyond six months without orders of Government."
(3.) The first case that came up to this Court for interpretation of these Regulations was the case of 1960-1 SCR 981 = (AIR 1960 SC 247). In that case this Court was called upon to construe the effect of Article 294 (a) of Eighth Edition of Mysore Services Regulations. The petitioner, who was retired from service from a particular date on the ground that he had attained superannuation on that date, challenged the order of compulsory retirement on various grounds. One of the grounds was that the order was contrary to Article 294 (a) of the Regulations. The petitioner, in particular, relied on Article 297 of the Mysore Services Regulations which laid down that a Government servant in superior service who has attained the age of 55 years, may at his option retire from the service on his superannuation pension. The petitioner urged that Article 297 indicated clearly that the option is with the public servant whether he retires at the age of 55 years or not. This Court rejected that contention and held : first, that under Article 294 (a) the age of retirement is 55 years and, secondly, Article 297 which is complementary to Article 294 (a) allows the Government servant, if the Government wants to keep him in service after 55, to opt for retirement. Wanchoo, J. observed that Article 297 did not mean that Government cannot retire him at the age of 55 years if he does not exercise the option.;