AP. SRIVASTAVA (DEAD) BY LRS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 20-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AP. SRIVASTAVA (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 
B 
(KULDIP SINGH AND G.B. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Fundamental Rules-Rule 56(J)(izT-Compuls01y retirement of Tem-
C porary Govemment with more than 20 years of service-Right to receive 
pensio1i-Whether lost-Held entitled to pension. 
The appellant joined the services of Government of India as tem-
porary Lower Division Clerk on 6.10.1955 and was promoted as Upper 
Division Clerk on 28.12.1962. He was reverted to the post of temporary 
D Lower Division Clerk on 1.12.1970. He was suspended on 1.12.1980 and 
departmental proceeding was initiated on 10.4.1981. An order of punish-
ment was passed on 1.6.1985. Since the appeal against it was not disposed 
of the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal on 
15.1.1987. While the proceedings were pending before the Tribunal, the 
E 
Government passed an order pre-maturely retiring the appellant under 
Rule 56(J)(ii) of the Fundamental Rules. This order was also challenged 
by the appellant before the Tribunal. Due to difference of opinion between 
the two Members, the matter was referred to the Chairman who in turn 
referred the matter to the Vice-Chairman, who held that the order of 
compulsory retirement was not a punishment. He also held that since the 
F 
appellant neither superannuated nor declared permanently incapacitated 
nor has sought voluntary retirement, he was not entitled to pensionary 
benefits. 
In this appeal it was contended that when F.R. 56(J) confers power 
G on the employer to retire government servant in public Jnterest after giving 
3 months notice under the circumstances mentioned therein and Rule 
56(K) similarly entitles .a government servant to voluntarily retire after 
giving 3 months notice, there should not be any different criteria in the 
matter of award of pension. 
H 
The Respondents contended that a temporary government servant 
826 
... 
.. _ 
,I 
AP.SRIVASTAVAv. U.0.1. [PATNAIK,J.] 
827 
will not be entitled to any pension even if he has completed more than 20 A 
years of service when the employer compulsorily retires him in exercise of 
power under Rule 56(J) of the Fundamental Rules. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. After completion of a particular period of service the 
employer has a right to compulsorily retire the employee in public interest 
and similarly the employee has a right to voluntarily retire on giving three 
months notice. It has been held by this Court time and again that pension 
is not a charity or bounty nor it is conditional payment solely dependent 
on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long service 
and is often described as deferred portion of payment for past services. It 
is in fact in the nature of social security plan provided for a superannuated 
government servant. [829-E] · 
B 
c 
2. Though the legal position is that an order of compulsory retire-
ment is not a ·punishment and pension is a right of the employee for D 
services rendered, there is no justification for denying such right to a 
temporary government servant merely on the ground that he was required 
to retire by the employer in exercise of power under Rule 56(J) of the 
Fundamental Rules. A temporary government servant would be entitled to 
pension after he has completed more than 20 years of service even if he is E 
required to retire by the employer in exercise of power under Rule 56(J) 
of the Fundamental Rules. [829-H, 830-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8409 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.92 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 653of1988. 
D.N. Gupta and Rajesh for the Appellant. 
A.S. Nambiar, Hemant Sharma, P. Parmeshwaran and Ms. A. Sub-
hashini (NP) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATNAIK, J. Special Leave granted. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
The short question which arises for consideration is whether an 
employee who was a temporary government servant looses his right to 
receive pension when the employer exercises its option and retires the 
employee after he attain the age of 55 years in accordance with Rule 
56(J)(ii) of the Fundamental Rules, even though the employee might have 
completed more than 20 years service? 
The appellant joined the services of the Government of India as 
temporary Lower Division Clerk in the Central Tractor Organ

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.