BISHUN NARAIN MISHRA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 693 · Decided: 07-10-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
-
E 
.G 
H 
BISHUN NARAIN MISHRA 
v. 
ST ATE OF UTT AR PRADESH AND OTHERS 
Octobe~ 7, 1964 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 
693 
Constitution of India Arts. 311, 14--Civil Service-Age of superannua-
tion-Raised from 55 to 58 yetus and again reduced to 55 years-Termi-
nation of service as a resul.t of reduction of age of superannuation ·whether 
attracts Art. 31 l-Nt>tification whether retrospective, discriminatory. 
By a notification dated November 27, 1957 the Government of Uttar 
Prade5h raised the age of superannuatien for members of its s~rvice from 
55 to 58 years. 
On May 25, 1961 by a notification under Art. 309 the 
Government again reduced the age to 55 years. 
By a proviso to the later 
notification it was laid down that those who owing to the earlier notification 
had continued in employment beyond the age of 55 years will be deemed 
to have been retained in service beyond the date of con1pulsory retire-
ment. 
Another order was issued by the Government 
the same day 
directing that all those who were between the age of 55 years and 58 years 
and had been retained in service' in the above manner would be retired on 
December 31, 1961. 
The appellant who attained the age of 55 years on 
December 11, 1960 and was continued in service when the age of retire-
ment was raised to 58 years was one of those who were retireu on December 
31, 1961. 
Aggrieved, he filed a \Vtit petition before the High Court 
\vhich v.'as disn1isse<l and an appeal to the Division Bench also failed. 
Appeal was filed before the Supreme· Court by special leave. 
It was pointed out on behalf of the appellant that : 
( I ) the change in the rule of retirement made by the notification of 
May 25, 1961, was hit by Art. 311 as it amounted to removal of public 
.servants from service \vithout complying 
with 
the 
requirements 
of 
Art. 311(2). 
· 
(2) the rule in question beihg retrospective was bad as no notification 
could be made retrospectively; and 
(3) the rule was hit by Art. f4 inasmuch as it resulted in inequality 
between public servants in the matter of retirement. 
HELD: (i) There is no provision which takes away the power of 
Government to increase or reduce the age of superannuation and tl1e,refore 
as the rule in question onJ~ 
.. dealt with the age of superannuation and the 
appellant had to retire because of the reduction in the age of superannua-
tion it cannot be said that the termination of his service \vhich thus came 
about was removal within the meaning of Art. 311. [697 B-E]. 
~foti Rain Deka 'l General Manager, 
North 
Frontier Rly., A.LR. 
1964 S.C. 600 refcrre!i to. 
(ii) There was no retrospcctivity in the rule. All that it provided \Vas 
that from the date it came into ~orce the age of retirement would be 55 
years. 
The rule would operate only for the period after it can1e into 
force. 
Nor did the proviso make it retrospective. 
It only provided JS 
to how the period of service beyond 55 years 'Should be treated in vie\~: of 
the earlier rule of 1957 which was being changed by thq rule of 1961. The 
694 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS 
[1965] l S.C.ll. 
second order issued on the same day clearly showed that there was no 
retrospective operation of the rule for in actual fact no Government ser-
vant below 58 yean was retired before the date of the new rule i.e. May 
25, 1961. Thus the new rule reducing the age of retirement from 58 years 
to 55 yean could not be held to be rcLrOSpecti>e. (698 A.CJ. 
(iii) There was no force in the contention that the new rule was dis-
criminatory ina(jmuch as different Government servants were retired on 
December 31, 1961 at different ages. 
The rule treated alike all those who 
were between the age of 55 and 58 years. Those who were retired on 
December 31, ! 961 certainly retired at different ages but that was '" 
because their services were retained for different periods beyond the age 
of 55. 
Government wa.c; not obliged to retain the services of evcrv public 
servant for the same length of time. 1be retention of public scivants after 
the period of retirement depended upon their efficiency and the c~igcncic~ 
of public service, and in the present case the difference in the period of 
retention had arisen on account of the exigencies of public service. 
(698 
F-H]. 
C1v11. ArrHLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1053 of 
1963. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 29, 1962 
of .the A

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