C.G V. MENON Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(DLH)-1983-2-36
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 03,1983

C G V MENON Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MANAGING DIRECTOR V/S. VINAY NARAYAN [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K R TAHILIANI [REFERRED]
DHARAM DEV MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
K R TAHILIANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This case is squarely covered by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Union of India V/s. K. R. Tahiliani,1980 1 SLR 847 . That was an appeal from an order of H. L. Anand J. of this Court (See his judgment in K. R. Tahiliani V/s. Union of India, 1978 1 SLR 815 . The Supreme Court dealt with question of compulsory retirement under Fundamental R. 56(j).The Supreme Court decided that R. 56(j) will not apply to a Govt. servant who is officiating in Class I or Class II post or service. As Krishna Iyer J. put it "an officiating hand will not be caught in the claws of the compulsory retirement". Fundamental Rule 56(j) says :
"(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three month's pay and allowances in lieu of such notice;

(i) if he in Class I or Class II service or post and had entered Government service before attaining the age of thirty-five years, after he has attained the age of fifty years;

(ii) in any other case after he has attained the age of fifty five years:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Government servant referred to in cl. (e) who entered Government service on or before 23rd July, 1966 and to a Government servant referred to in cl. (f)."

(2.)If a person has a substantive appointment in Class II and is holding an officiating appointment in Glass II service or post then he cannot be retired at the age of 50 years. He can be retired only at the age of 55 years under this Rule.
(3.)Now the case of the petitioner is this. On 31-8-1956 he was appointed as a Technical Assistant in the office of the Economic Advisor, Ministry of Development, as a direct recruit. This was a class III post. This post was called the post of Technical Assistant or Junior Investigator. These two terms were synonymous.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.