GYAN CHAND versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 04-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

GYAN CHAND 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 4, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Railway Establishment Code : 
Rule 1802-Compulsory retirement-Railway servant-Promotion from 
Group 'C' post to Group 'B' post-Continuing on group 'B' post not only in 
ordinary scale but in senior scale of pay for over 10 years-Order of compul-
sory retirement passed-Claim for benefit of proviso to Ru.le-Held, proviso 
A 
B 
c 
to Rule. 1802 not app/icabZ. to the case-The officer continued as Group 'B' 
Officer in substantive capacity-He could not simultaneously continue on D 
group 'C' post in substantive capacity. 
The appellant, an officer of Group 'B' service In Railways, unsuccess-
fully challenged before the High Court, the order compulsorily retiring him 
from senrice. 
In appeal before this Court, it was contended for the appellant that 
sincehe was not confirmed on Group 'B' post till his compulsory retire· 
ment, he was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Rule 1802 of the 
Railway Establishment Code, which provided that a railway servant hold-
ing a Group 'C' post in substantive capacity and working on a Group 'A! 
or Group 'B' post in an officiating capacity, if required to be compulsorily 
retired in public interest, be allowed, on his request, to continue in service 
on Group 'C' post. · 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : The order compulsorily retiring the appellant is not vitiated 
by any error of law. In view of the fact that the appellant continued on 
Group 'B' post not only in ordinary scale but also in senior scale of pay, 
for 10 years it could not be said that he continued on the said post only 
E 
F 
G 
on officiating basis. He obviously continued in substantive capacity as 
Group 'B' Officer. He could not simultaneously continue in Group 'C' H 
161 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
service in a substantive capacity. Therefore, the proviso to Rule 1802 of 
the Railway Establishment Code has no application to the facts of the case. 
(164-A, 163-G-H) 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11874 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.94 of the Central Ad· 
ministrative Tribunal Allahabad in Case No. 1136 of 1991. 
K.B. Sounder Rajan and Mrs. Pushpa Rajan for the Appellant. 
C 
P.P. Singh and Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Respondents. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The only relevant question for decision is whether the appellant is 
entitled to the benefit of proviso to Rule 1802 of the Railway Establishment 
Code. This Court on 24th April, 1995 passed the following order : 
"Issue Notice. 
Limited to the question as to why the proviso to Rule 1802 should 
not be applied to the petitioner, namely, Gyan Chand while is 
continuing in officiating Group 'B' post, if the authority intends to 
take action for retiring the officer in public interest, he would be 
entitled to be informed and if opted for reverted to the substantive 
Group 'C' post. In this case, the said action has not been done. 
Therefore the respondents are at liberty to show cause why the 
proviso should not be applied to the petitioner and direction be 
given to make the order in terms thereof." 
Pursuant thereto, the counter-affidavit has been filed by the respon-
dents Therein, the Rule has been extracted which states thus : -
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, the appointing 
authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest 
to do so, have the absolute right to retire any railway servant by 
giving him notice of not less than 3 months in writing or 3 months 
H 
pay and allowances in lieu of such notice -
GYAN CHAND v. U.0.1. 
163 
(i) If he is in Group 'A' service or post or in a Group 'C' service A 
or post in a substantive capacity but officiating in a Group 'A' or 
Group 'B' service or post and had entered Government service 
before attaining the age of thirty five. years, after he has attained 
the age of fifty years. 
(ii) in any other case, after he has attained the age of fifty five 
years : 
Provided that a railway servant who is in Group 'C' post or service 
in a substantive capacity, but is holding a Group 'A' or 'B' post or 
service in an officiating capacity shall, in case it is decided to retire 
him from the Group 'A' or Group 'B' post of service in the public 
interest, be allowed on his request in writing, to continue in service 
in the Group 'C' post or servi

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