GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU versus P.A. MANICKAM ETC.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1137 · Decided: 27-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU 
A 
v. 
P.A. MANICKAM ETC. 
FEBRUARY 27, 1996 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND B.L. HANSARIA. JJ.] 
B 
Fundamental Rule 56(d) : Explanation II. 
Se1vice law-Compuls01y retirement-G.O.Ms. No. 761 Public (Ser-
vices A) Depa1tlnent dated 19.3.1973-Review Committee:,~Procedure to be C 
fallowed for sc1utiny in matters relating to compuls01y retirement-Employees 
compuls01ily retired in public interest-Matter not refe1Ted to Review Commit-
tee six months before the employee attained the ·age of 50 years or completed 
25 years of se1vice in accordance with Govemment instntctions-Chal-
lenge-High Cowt holding that there was a duty 
cast on the Head of 
Dep01tment to consider eve1y one of the cases of the employees who were due D 
for review in accordance with instmctions-lf an officer's name was not sent 
to the Review Committee lzis name cannot be sent Jar con!)ideration for 
compuls01y retirement-Consequently it directed reinstatement of employees 
with consequential benefits-State appeaf--Held view taken by High Court 
cannot be sustained-Held the rule presC1ibes a st01ting point i.e. attaining the 
age of fifty years or completion of 25 years .wvice-It does not provide a 
temzinu ad quem-Govemment can consider premature appointment at any 
time after the stmting point-Direction to Head of Dep01tment is only to send 
cases for review and not to cal7)' out and complete the review before presc1ibed 
dates. 
Union of India & Ors. v. Nasinniya Ahmadmiya Chauhan, (1994] 
Supp. 2 SCC 537, referred to. 
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam & Ors., [1978] 1 SCR 
E 
F 
521, distinguished. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 352 of 
1996 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.4.84 of the Madras High 
Court in W.A. No. 143 of 1981. 
H 
1137 
1138 
0 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
A. Mariarputham for the Appellant. 
B 
V. Balachandran, V. Ramasubramaniam, Mahabir Singh and V. 
Balachandran for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C.A. Nos. 4159 and 4158 of 1996 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3843/86 
& 4988/85 :) 
Special leave granted. 
C CA. No. 4126/85: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondent in this 
appeal has died and he has instructions to withdraw this appeal. This 
appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 
This is a batch of appeals arising from judgment and orders of the 
High Court of Madras. The principal judgment of the High Court was 
delivered by a full Bench and that is the subject matter of C.A. No. 352/85. 
In the other matters the Full Bench judgment was followed. 
The respondent in each of these appeals was an employee of the 
appellant, State on Tamil Nadu. He was compulsorily retired from service 
in the public interest after he had attained the age of 50 years. He 
challenged the order of retirement on the ground that the provisions of the 
rule and the directioris of the State Government applicable to compulsory 
retirement had not been followed. The Full Bench came to the conclusion 
that the case of the respondent had to be upheld and he was reinstated or 
treated as reinstated, as the case might be, with consequential benefits. 
The rule in question is Fundamental Rule 56(d), which reads thus: 
"P.R. 56( d) : 
Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the 
appropriate authority shall if it is of the opinion 
that it is in the public interest so to do, have the 
absolute right to retire any Government servant by 
giving him notice in writing or three months pay 
and allowances in lieu of ·such notice, after he has 
attained the age of fifty years or after he has com-
GOVT. OF T.N. v. P.A. MANICKAM 
1139 
pleted twenty five years of qualifying service. Any A 
Government servant who has attained the age of 
fifty years or who has completed twenty-five years 
of qualifying service may likewise retire from ser-
vice by giving notice of not less than three months 
in writing to the appropriate authority." 
The State Government, by G.O.Ms. No. 761 Public (Services A) 
Department dated 19.3.1973, gave directions for the constitution of review 
committees and the procedure to he followed for scrutiny in matters 
relating to compulsory retirement. Clause 4 thereof reads thus. 
"The Government also direct that cases coming up for retirement 
during the first half year of any year shall be sent up for review 
before the 1st July of the previous year. The case of persons who 
are due for review in th

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