- (1.) This appeal, by special leave, raises the question regarding validity of Rule 27 (iv) of the U. P. State Mineral Development Corporation Limited Employees Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to 9 as 'the Rules') , as amended vide the Amendment Rules of 1988 with effect from 15/5/1988, which provides for compulsory retirement of an employee of the U. P. State Mineral Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation').
(2.) The Corporation, a company registered under the Companies Act, h 1956, is an undertaking of the government of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent joined the Corporation on 18/1/1977. Initially he was appointed on the postof Marketing Officer. He was redesignated as Marketing Manager on 16/4/1977. He was confirmed on the post of Marketing Manager by order dated 2/6/1984 with effect from 14/3/1978. He started officiating as Chief Marketing Manager under order dated 12/3/1984. By order dated 20/8/1988, the respondent was compulsorily retired from service from the date of the issuance of the said order. It was directed that in lieu of three months' notice he would be entitled to the payment of a sum equivalent to the amount of salary and allowances, if any, at the rate applicable to him just before the retirement. The said order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 27 (iv) of the Rules. The respondent filed a writ petition (WP No. 66 of 1988 in the Allahabad High court, Lucknow bench, challenging the said order of compulsory retirement. The said writ petition has been allowed by the High court by the impugned judgment dated 20/2/1990. The High court has held that Rule 27 (iv) of the Rules is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as it does not prescribe any minimum period of service and confers arbitrary power on the authority who can pass an order for compulsory retirement of an employee after 1, 2, 5 or 10 years of service. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the High court the appellants have filed this appeal.
(3.) Apart from supporting the judgment of the High court striking down Rule 27 (iv) of the Rules, the learned counsel for the respondent has addressed us on the merits of the order of compulsory retirement and has submitted that even if the Rule is held to be valid the said order cannot be sustained. We will first examine the question regarding the validity of Rule 27 (iv) of the Rules.;