HARI SHANKAR GAUR AND ANR. ETC. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1003 · Decided: 30-11-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
HARi SHANKAR GAUR AND ANR. ETC. 
A 
v. 
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 30, 1988 
[G.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Services: Delhi Transport Corporation-Employees of erst-
while Gwalior and Northern Indian Transport Corporation-Protected 
employees under the Agreement of Take-over-Right to continue in 
service upto 60 years. 
The Gwalior and Northern India Transport Company (GNIT 
Company) was operating transport services in and around Delhi. It was 
taken over on May 14, 1948 by the Government of India, Ministry of 
Transport and named as Delhi Transport Service. The ser\·ices of all 
employees of the GNIT company were taken over by the Government of 
India, but they continued to be governed by the rules in force before the 
take-over. Subsequently it was taken over by the Delhi Municipal 
Corporation and later on by the Delhi Transport Undertaking and came 
to be known as Delhi Transport Corporation. 
All employees of GNIT Company employed before 28.10.46 and 
were in continuous service at the time it was taken over by the Govern-
ment of India were treated as protected employees as per clause 7 of the 
take-over agreement. Prior to the take-over they were governed by the 
Gwalior State Civil Service Rules which stipulate the age o.f retirement 
at 60. Option however was there for the employee to seek voluntary 
retirement at SS years and for the Government to compulsorily retire 
an employee at SS. The Delhi Transport Corporation retired the 
petitioners on the ground that they attained the age of superannuation 
at S8 years. It was challenged in a writ petition before the Delhi High 
Court and the petitioners contended that option was there both for the 
Corporation as also the employees to retire at SS, but superannuation 
could be only on reaching 60, and not at SS as claimed by the Corpora-
tion. The Delhi High Court rejected the petition. Against this, the 
petitioners have come to this Court by way of a special leave petition. A 
writ petition has also been filed claiming the same relief. 
Allowing the special leave petition ·as also the writ petition, this 
Court, 
1003 
, 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
1004 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
' 
HELD: The persons who were originally in the employment of 
GNIT Company and were employed prior to October 28, 1946 and 
continued in service till May 14, 1948 and onwards will have the right to 
remain in service upto 60 years unless the option to retire was exercised 
by the person or the Corporation at 55 years. The argument that the age 
of 55 years at which an employee could be asked to retire has been 
raised by the Corporation to 58 .years and if an employee has been 
retired at 58, it was not prejudicial to him since he could have been 
retired in his erstwhile Company only at 55, has little merit in it. If the 
Delhi Transport Corporation had exercised its right to retire the 
petitioners on attaining the age of 58 years, the argument would 
have been tenable. But that was not done by the Corporation. The 
Corporation retired the petitioners on the ground that they attained 
the age of superannuation at 58 years. That meant the Corporation was 
under the wrong impression that the petitioners had no right to 
continue beyond the age of 58 years. [1008C-D; l007E-G; 1008C] 
D 
CIVIL/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) 
No. 1244 of 1986. 
E 
F 
G 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
WITH 
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8948 of 1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.1986 of the Delhi High 
Court in C.W.P. No. 795 of 1986. 
Jitender Sharma for the Petitioners. 
T.U. Mehta and G.K. Bansal for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
OZA, J. This special leave petition is filed against the judgment 
of the .Delhi High Court rejecting a petition filed by the petitioners. A 
separate writ petition for the same relief is also filed in this Court. The 
two matters raise a simple question about the age of retirement of the 
employees in the Delhi Transport Corporation, who were originally 
employed iti the erstwhile Gwalior and Northern India Transport 
H 
Company ('GNIT Company' for short) in 1946 or before that. 
H.S. GAUR v. D.T.C. !OZA, J.] 
1005 
It is not in dispute that before 1948 these petitioners were 
employed in the GNIT Company which was a company owned by the 
Rulers of Gwalior in the erstwhile native State of Gwalior. The said 
company was operating the transport services

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