SHIV KUMAR Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RLY. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, a retired employee of the Northern Railway against respondent No. 1, General Manager, Northern Railway and respondent No. 2, Chairman of the Railway Board for issue of an appropriate Writ, Order or a direction quashing the decision of the respondents retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 13-3-1969 and directing them to retain the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60 years.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk Class II in the North Western Railway on 8-11-1928 and was provisionally confirmed in the said post on 30-8-1935 and finally confirmed in this said post on 16-9-1935. After the petitioner had passed the necessary departmental examination, he was promoted as Inspector of Station Accounts on 30-6-1958 and was confirmed in that post on 28-8-1961 and confirmed to work in the said post till the date of his retirement. On 1-8-1951 the Government of India, Ministry of Railways issued a letter No. E-48-RTI/912 declaring certain categories of staff as ministerial, for the purpose of Rule 2046 contained in the Indian Railway Establishment Code. According to this letter the post of Senior and Junior Accountants was included in the category of ministerial staff. In paragraph 48 contained in Sec. B, sub-section III of Chapter 1 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual issued on 1-8-1960, the post of Junior Inspector of Station Accounts/ Stores Accounts was shown as a ministerial post. Rule 2046 prior to its amendment in 1967 while providing for the retirement of a ministerial servant at the age of 55 years, also provided for his retention upto the age of 60 years, if he continued to be efficient upto that age. This rule was amended in 1967 and the amended rule extended the superannuation age to 60 years in the case of a ministerial Railway Servant who entered Government service on or before 31st of March, 1938 and held on that date:

(3.) According to the petitioner his case was governed by this Rule. But on 1-11-1968 a list of the employees of the Northern Railway who were due to retire in March, 1969, was published and the petitioner's name was included in that list and it was indicated that the petitioner would retire on the fore-noon of 13-3-1969. The petitioner made a representation dated 12-1-1969 to the Chairman, Railway Board contending that he was entitled to remain in service till he attained the age of superannuation on 60 years. The petitioner received a reply dated 19-2-1969 from the Assistant Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, Delhi informing him that his representation had been rejected. The petitioner, has therefore, filed the present petition.