Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ of mandamus certiorari or such other writ as may be proper be issued declaring that the decision of the Government retiring the Petitioner from service prematurely is illegal, void and inoperative and directing that the Petitioner be reinstated in his substantive post. The facts briefly stated are as follows:
(2.) THE Petitioner, Raj Kishore, entered Government service in the office of the Director of Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh in the year 1923 as an apprentice and having worked on various posts rose to the position of Head Assistant in the pay -scale of Rs. 300 -20 -400. The Petitioner had an unblemished record of service and got honoraria and special pay getting promotions sometimes superseding his seniors. In 1951 the Government of Uttar Pradesh, opposite party No. 1, on the recommendation of the Director of Agriculture, opposite party No. 2, appointed the Petitioner in a leave vacancy as a Personal Assistant to the Director of Agriculture, opposite party No. 2, in the pay -scale of Rs. 350 -25 -500. This was in consideration of his honest and efficient work and integrity. The work of the Petitioner as Personal Assistant was found so satisfactory that in June 1952 the Director of Agriculture opposite party No. 2, recommended to the Government for the Petitioner's appointment to another excadre gazetted post of Personal Assistant to the Principal of the Agriculture College of Kanpur in the same scale of pay, viz. Rs. 350 -25. 500. But this was the turning point in the Petitioner's career. For some mysterious reason, according to the Petitioner the said post was ordered to be held in abeyance till the Petitioner was got rid of by being compulsorily retired prematurely. As soon as the Petitioner was compulsorily retired the post was resurrected and one Sri J.P. Verma, a Stenographer to the Minister for Agriculture and Revenue, U.P., was appointed to the post in May 1953. What transpired in the meanwhile may now be told. Scenting some trouble the Petitioner applied for leave on 15th April, 1953. On 18th April 1953, a letter sign -by the Director of Agriculture was received by the Petitioner intimating to him that "it was the policy of the Government laid down in Government Order" noted therein to retire such officials as have completed more than 25 years of qualifying service and 'advising' him to proceed on leave preparatory to retirement immediately and to apply for such leave within 7 days from the receipt thereof." On April 25, 1953, a reply to this letter was sent by the Petitioner pointing out that he would be completing his 30 years of service and 50 years of age on 6 -11 -1953 and he might, at least, be allowed to continue till that date and might be allowed to proceed on leave as already applied for on 15 -4 -1953, and the Petitioner would then later consider whether it would be in his interest to follow the said advice. The Petitioner, thereupon, was served with an order of 29th May 1953, issued by the Director of Agriculture informing him that the Government had decided to retire him and had sanctioned him four months' leave preparatory to retirement retrospectively from 28 -4 -1953. Aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner sought an interview with the Minister for Agriculture and Revenue Uttar Pradesh, for securing redress, but it was not granted. Ultimately the Petitioner submitted a representation on 20 -7 -1953 to the Government through the Director of Agriculture, pointing out that the premature compulsory retirement of the Petitioner more than five years before time was not warranted by the rules of service or any rule of law or any valid recommendation made by any legal authority and the action of the opposite parties will cause great financial loss to him to the tune of Rs. 22,000/ - or Rs. 23,000/ - beside a recurring loss of Rs. 31/ - or 32/ - per month as his pension would stand reduced by that amount. But no reply was given to the Petitioner. Hence he filed the present petition in this Court, on the 20th August, 1953.' Under Rule 56, of the Financial Handbook, Volume II issued by the authority of the Government of the United Provinces the rule of normal retirement of a Government servant is as follows: Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant, other than a Government servant in inferior service is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances.
(3.) THE rule under which the Petitioner was compulsory retired is para 465 of the Civil Service Regulations as adapted in the Uttar Pradesh. The rule after its amendment in 1948, now stands as follows: - - (i) A retiring pension is granted to a Government servant who is permitted to retire after completing qualifying service for 25 years or on attaining the age of 50 years. (2) A retiring pension is also granted to a "Government servant who is required by Government to retire after completing 25 years or more of qualifying service.;