GHANSHYAM DAS SHRIVASTAVA Vs. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS GENERAL M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava challenges the order of the Chief Conservator of Forests, dated 24th October 1975, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 1st November 1975.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed Forest Ranger in the year 1948 in the erstwhile Rewa State. The petitioner continued in service after the formation of the State of Vindhya Pradesh. The petitioner also continued in service after the reorganisation of States in the new State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner's contention is that on 1st November 1975 he had not completed 30 years of service and, therefore, he could not be compulsorily retired from service. It is argued by the petitioner that under the rules applicable to him before the formation of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner could be compulsorily retired only after completing 30 years of service and that these rules still govern the petitioner. It is also argued that service conditions relating to compulsory retirement could not be changed to the disadvantage of the petitioner by the State Government without the consent of the Central Government as provided in section 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The petitioner further argues that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh New pension Rules which permit compulsory retirement of a Government servant after completion of 25 years of qualifying service and which have been relied upon by the respondents in the return to justify the order passed against the petitioner are not applicable to the petitioner as the consent of the Central government was not obtained before applying them to the petitioner.

(3.) WE will assume for purposes of this case that under the service rules in force in Vindhya Pradesh which were applicable to the petitioner before the formation of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner could not be compulsorily retired before he completed 30 years of qualifying service. After the formation of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the question of unification of fundamental Rules, Supplementary Rules, Leave Rules and Pension Rules was taken up by the State Government. A Notification was issued on this subject by order and in the name of the Governor on 12th November 1959. The notification stated that the State Government had decided that subject to the reservations mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Notification, all Government servants under its rule making control including those who were employed for the affairs of any of the constituent States immediately before 1st November 1956, shall be governed by the set of rules mentioned in the Notification. One of the rules mentioned in the Notification is the Madhya Pradesh New Pension rules, 1951, as amended from time to time. Paragraph 3 of the Notification stated that those permanent employees who were employed for the affairs of any of the constituent States immediately before 1st November 1956 could opt for the Pension Rules applicable to them immediately before the States reorganization. Paragraph 4 of the Notification directed that the option should be exercised by a Government servant within 6 months of the date of the Notification and paragraph 7 provided that if the option was not exercised within the said period, the Government servant shall automatically be governed by the New pension Rules made applicable to him by the Notification. This Notification of the Government was published in the Gazette. The petitioner did not exercise the option given to him under paragraph 3 of the Notification. The madhya Pradesh New Pension Rules, 1951, therefore, became applicable to the petitioner. Sub-para (ii) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of the New Pension Rules as it stood in 1959 was as follows: