KAILASH CHANDRA versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 374 · Decided: 16-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I96I 
March z6. 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
KAILASH CHANDRA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. WANOHoo, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
[1962] 
Railway Servant-Compulsory retirement, Age of-Retention 
in service after 55 years of age, if compulsory or optional-Minis-
terial servants, classification of, if unreasonable-Railway Establish-
ment Code, Rule 2046(2)(a), Fundamental Rule 56(b)(I), Constitu-
tion of India, Art. I4. 
The appellant who was a clerk under the East Indian Rail-
ways was compulsorily retired from service on attaining the age 
of 55 years. His prayer for further retention in service having 
been rejected he filed a suit alleging that he was entitled to be 
retained in service up to the age of 60 years under Rule 2046 
(2)(a) of the Railway Establishment Code, which runs as 
follows:-
" Clause (a)-A ministerial servant who is not governed 
by sub-cl. (b) may be required to retire at the age of 55 years 
but should ordinarily be retained in service if he continues to 
be efficient up to the age of 60 years. He must not be retained 
after that age except in very special circumstances which must 
be recorded in writing and with the sanction of the competent 
authority." 
His suit was decreed by the Trial Court but the High Court 
reversed it holding that the plaintiff-appellant had no right to 
continue in service beyond the age of 55 years. On appeal with 
the certificate of the High Court. 
Held, that the correct interpretation of Rule 2046(2)(a) is 
that a railway ministerial servant falling within this clause 
may be compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 55 but 
when the servant is between the age of 55 and 60 years the 
appropriate authority has the option to continue him in ser-
vice, subject to the condition that the servant continues to be 
efficient but the authority is not bound to retain him even if he 
continues to be efficient. This rule does not give the servant 
a right to be retained in service beyond the age of 55 years even 
if he continues to be efficient. 
Jai Ram v. Union of India, A.LR. r954 S.C. 584, explained. 
Basant Kumar Pal v. The Chief Electrical Engineer, A.LR. 
r956 Cal. 93, Kishan Dayal v. General Manager, Northern Rail-
way, A.LR. r954 Punj. 245 and Raghunath Narain Mathur v. 
Union of India, A.LR. r953 All. 352, approved. 
' 
• 
t _. 
• 
• 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
375 
The formation by the Railway Board of two classes of 
1961 
ministerial servants, namely, one of those who retired after 
September 8, r948, and the other of those who had already /{ailash Chandra 
retired before that date was a reasonable class1ficahon and chd 
v. 
not offend Art. r4 of the Constitution. 
Uaion of India 
CIVIL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 283 of 1960. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
November 20, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court 
(Lucknow Bench) in First Civil Appeal No. 3of1956. 
C. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Lal, for the appellant. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer and T. 1"\I. Sen, for the respon-
dent. 
1961. March 16. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
DAS GUPTA, J.-The appellant, a clerk in the ser-
Das Gupta ]. 
vice of the East Indian Railways was compulsorily 
retired from service with effect from June 30, 1948, on 
attaining the .age of 55 years. 
His prayer for fur-
ther retention in service on the ground that he was 
entitled to be retained under Rule 2046/2 of the Rail-
way Establishment Code having been rejected he 
brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal in 
the court of the Civil Judge, Lucknow, alleging that 
he was entitled to be retained under the above rule 
and the order for compulsory retirement on attaining 
the age of 55 years was void and inoperative in law. 
He accordingly prayed for a declaratory decree that 
the order of his compulsory retirement was illegal and 
void and for a money decree for arrears of pay on the 
basis that he had continued in service. 
The main defence was a denial of his right to be 
retained in service under the rules. The Trial Court 
accepted the plaintiff's contention as regards the effect 
of the rule, gave him a declaration as prayed for and 
also decreed the claim for money in part. 
On appeal the High Court took a different view of 
Rule 2046 and held that that rule gave the plaintiff no 
right to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years . 
The High Court therefore allowed the appeal and dis-
missed the plaintiff's suit. Against 

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