BATAHARI JENA versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 352 · Decided: 05-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

:152 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BATAHARI JENA 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA 
April 5, 1971 
[S. M. S!KRI, C. J., G. K. MITIBK, K. S. HBGDE, A. N. GKOVE!t 
AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Civil Service-Orissa-Age of superannuation raised from 55 to 
58 
years by Government resolution dated May 21, 1963-liberalised Pension 
Rules did not have effect that employee should have put in 30 years' rervice 
before be could be retired at 55-Guidlines ti> Heads of the Departments 
mentioning inter alia that an officer lacking i'}-tegrity may be retired ut 55--
This did not cast stigma on every officer who was retired at 55-Artic/e 
311(2) of Constitution not attracted. 
The appellant who was born on January 1,1910 entered the service 
of the former Indian State of Mayurbhanj in Orissa as an engineer on 
1st November 1937. On the merger of that State with the Province of 
Orissa on January 1, 1949 he became an officer of the said province. The 
age of superannuation of Government employees in Orissa was then 55 
years. 
On May 21, 1963 tho Government of Orissa passed a resolution 
raising the ago of compulsory retirement to 58 years with effect from 
Decen1ber 1, 1962. The power of Government to retire an employee at 
the age of 55 years was however retained and so was the right of the em-
ployee to voluntarily retire at that age after giving reqU.isite notice. The 
resolution aforesaid also stated that the above provision will be jn '\ddition 
to the provisions already contained in the Liberalised Pension Rules ac .. 
cording to which Government could compulsorily retire an employee who 
had put in 30 years service, the employee also having a corresponding right 
to retire after the said period of service. On February 5, 1954 a notifica-
tion was issued by the Government of Orissa laying down inter alia that 
in any ca~e where Government had reasonable cause to believe that em-
ployee lacked integrity it would be appropriate to determine upon his re-
tirement. On July 14, 1964 the appellant was asked to retire from Gov-
ernment service with effect from January 1, 1965. His representation for 
reconsideration was not accbpted. His writ petition in the High Court was 
rejected. By certificate tho appellant came to this Court contending (i) that 
in view ot the Liberalised Pension Rules he could not be retired before he 
had completed 30 years of service, and (ii) that having regard to the critt-
ria laid down by th,e notification dated February 5, 1964 the order. of 
retirement cast a stigma on him and as such was violative of Arl 311 
of the Constitution. 
HELD: (1) Before May 21, 1963 an employee of the Government of 
Orissa would have been due for superannuation When he attained the age 
of SS years whether he bad or had not put in thirty years qualifying service. 
Government bad before the said date an option to ask him to reti!"e if be 
bad completed 30 years qualifying service even though he had not reached 
the age of fifty five years; correspondingly the officer had the right to 
retire if he wanted to do so before he reached the age mentioned if he 
had 30 years' qualifying service to his credit. The resolution of May 21. 
1963 taiscd the age of superannuttion from SS to 58 but nevertheless under 
paragraph 3 thereof the Government reserved to itself a right to ask any 
employee to retire when he attained the age of SS years without assignina 
BATA~ARI .. ORISSA (Miller, J.) 
aoy reason. Correspondinaly the employee was not bound to continue in 
service beyond the age of filly years unless he wanled it. There was n.o 
alteration ·in the rule under which a Government servant could voluntari· 
ly retire or be asked to retire in a case when he had completed thirty years' 
service. In other words, the ria:ht of Government to require an officer lC\ 
retire af any time after he had completed 30 years' service was and still 
remained intact. This right which was not linked with the age of super· 
annuation before May 1963 remained unaffected even after that date. Al! 
tbou1h the aae of superannualion was raised from 55 to 58 years Govern· 
ment armed itself with the power to require any employee to retire when 
he attained lhe aae of 55 years without assi1nin1 any reason. The peti· 
tioncr's araument based on the fact that he had not completed 30 years' 
of service, must therefore, fail. [355H-356E) 
· 
(ii) Slnce the aae of superannualion fixed was nol unaccounlably early 
there was no violalion of Art. 311(2). 
[3580) 
Gurdt• Singh Sidh1

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