NAND KISHORE PRASAD BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the respective orders of compulsory retirement passed against each of them. Some of the points involved in most of these cases are the same. Hence, this common judgment. Before, however, I turn to deal with the individual cases, it is worthwhile to present here the relevant statutory rules in the matter.

(2.) The law relating to compulsory retirement of Government servants was originally incorporated in rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) which reads thus -

(3.) The second Ordinance, which is deemed to have come into effect on the 26th June, 1975, repealed the first Ordinance by section 4 (2). The result would have been the restoration of the original status of rule 74 (b). But that again was cut down by section 4 (1) which specifically lays down that with effect from the 26th June, 1975 rule 74(b)(ii) only of the Code shall be deemed to have been repealed. The result was the restoration of the original provision of rule 74 (b)(iii) of the Code regarding the right of the Government Servant concerned to his claim for retiring pension as also the death-cum-retirement gratuity. And, in spite of rule 74 (b) (ii) having been repealed, all orders purported to have been passed under that rule have been laid down as deemed to have been passed under the provisions of the second Ordinance. The proviso to section 3 (3) of the second Ordinance again made it clear that in cases where three months' advance intimation of retirement of the Government servant had not been given, all that the Government servant concerned was entitled to was that on retirement he would get a sum equivalent to his three months' pay and allowances.