LexM.P. PRADHAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
M.P. PRADHAN
v.
UN{ON OF INDIA & ORS.
FEBRUARY 16, 1990
[KULDIP SINGH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
Civil Services: Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i)-Retirement at the age
"'
c
D
of 60 years-Applicability of-Joining as paid· apprentice on permanrnt
basis-Whether amounts to entering Government service on perman.ent
basis.
Appellant joined State Government service, as paid apprentice on
1. 7.: H7. He held various posts and was promoted to the permanent
post of Copyist on 1.8.1941. Io March, 1943 he came to Government of
India service on deputation, and retired in 1976 on attaining the age of
58 years. Thereafter he moved the Central Administrative Tr11iuoal
claiming that since he entered Government service on permanent basis
before 31.3.1938, he was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60
years, as per Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i).
Dismissing the application, the Central Administrative Tribunal
held that since the appellant was appointed on permanent basis to the
E
post of Copyist on 1.8.41, he did not come within the purview of Fonda·
mental Right 56(c)(i). Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this
appeal.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
F
HELD: It is correct that from 1st of July, 1937 upto 1st of
August, 1941 the appellant has been shown in the service book to be
appointed in officiating capacity to various posts hut the fact remains
that his basic appointment as paid apprentice was permanent. The
finding of the Tribunal that the appellant was made permanent for the
first time as Copyist on 1st August, 1941 canot be accepted in the face of
)
G
clear entries in the service book showing that he joined as paid
apprentice on permanent basis on lst of July, 1937. Joining as paid
apprentjce on permanent basis cannot be anything else but entering
Government service on permanent basis and since the entry was before
}-
3 lst March, 1938, Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i) is a'ltracted and the appel-
lant is entitled to remain in Govf1'!!!111'11t service till the age of 60 years. [4120.F]
H
410
)
J..._
a
1
-1
••
M.P. PRADHAN v. U.0.I [KULDIP SINGH, J]
411
[This court observed that since the appellant has already comp-
leted 60 years, he be paid two years emoluments with all consequential
benefits including any enhancement in the fixation of pension and other
post-retirement benefits.][4I3D] l
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1899
of f989.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.87 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in T.A. No. T-322/
85 (cw 293/77).
A
B
Shankar Vaidyalingam and Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam for the C
Appellant.
B. Dutta, Govind Das, Mrs. Sushma Suri and Ms. Indra Sawhney
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULD1P SINGH, J. The question for our consideration in this
appeal is whether the appellant is governed by Fundamental Rule
56(c)(i) and as such entitled to superannuation at the age of 60 years.
F..undamental Rule 56(c)(i) is reproduced as under:
"(c) A ministerial Government servant who entered
Government service on or before the 31st March, 1958 and
held on that date:
(i) a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post, or
... shall retire from service on the afternoon of the 1st day
of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years."
The appellant joined service as paid apprentice in the Collecto.rate
of Etawah, Government of Uttar Pradesh on 1st July,.)937. On the
same day he was asked to officiate in the post of Arranger. He was sent
back to the post of paid apprentice on 24th December, 1937 but was
again appointed as Arranger in officiating capacity on 3rd of January
1938. While holding the post of paid apprentice he had been appointed
in various posts on officiating basis. He was finally promoted and
appointed to a permanent post of Copyist in a substantive capacity on
1st of August, 1941. He came fo the Govenment of India on deputa-
D
E
F
G
H
412
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1990] 1 S.C.R.
A tion in March 1943 and thereafter retired from service on attaining the
age of 58 years in February 1976.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
The appellant claimed that having entered Government service
on permanent basis before 31st March, 1938 he was entitled to con-
tinue in service till the age of 60 years under Fundamental Rule 56
(c)(i) and his retirement on attaining the age of 58 years was illegal.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
diExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.