Y.G. RAMAMURTHY Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main and real focus of controversy in this writ appeal preferred against the order of our learned brother Gangadhara Rao, J. Reported in (1983) 2 Serv. L. J. 59 centres round the constitutional validity of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Pension Rules').

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the question are neither complicated nor disputed; The Writ petitioner retired from the Indian Revenue Service (Indian Customs and Excise Service- Class (I)) on 16-7-1981. He enrolled himself as an Advocate on 30-7-1981. The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of India, in their U. O. No. D-207/74 dated 15-1-74 permitted a Government servant to en-roll himself as an advocate subject to the condition that he shall not himself engage in any legal profession either independently or otherwise so long as he continued to be in Government Service.

(3.) Rule 11 of the Pension Rules places a restriction on practice in tax laws after retirement in case of officers belonging to Indian Revenue Service. The petitioner, therefore, made a request after retirement inter alia for permission to practice as an Advocate. The Government of India by their letter dated 28-9-1981, imposed certain restrictions . on his right to appear as an Advocate before departmental adjudicating officers for a period of two years from the date of his retirement and also on his right to do chamber practice in areas over which he exercised jurisdiction during the last three years preceding his retirement. The letter reads as follows :