MOHAN SINGH MALHI versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 25-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MOHAN SINGH MALHI 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
March 25, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J. AND JASWANT SINGH, J.] 
893 
Cotr1pulsory retirement after attaining the age of 55, with three 1no11ths' 
salc.ry in lieu of ndtice-Competerrcy of the State Gov.erntncnt to retire-Scope 
of Rule 5.32 (c) ( 1) of the Punjab Ciril Service Rales, Vol. ll. 
Under Section 5.32(c) (i), a retiring pension is granted to a Government 
Servant, other than a Class IV Government servant, who is retired by the 
Appointing Authority on or after he attains the age of 55 years by giving him 
not less than three months' notice. 
The appellant who was served with an order on September 2, 1967, retiring 
him from service 'vith effect from the date of communication to him of the 
order on payment of three months' salary and. allowances in lieu of notice 
required by rule 5.32(c)(i) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. 11 challeng-
ed the order 011 the ground that the State Government was. competent to retire 
him ohly with three months' notice but not with sala_ry and allowance5 in lieu 
of the notice under the rules. 
The Writ Petition was acce:ited by a single 
A 
B 
c 
judge and in Letters Patent Appeal by the State, the Division Bench referred it 
D 
to the Full Bench. The Full Bench by majority ans\vered the question referred 
to it in the affirmative and in favour of the State. 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court, 
HELD : Rule 5.32 merely provides for a contingency in which a retiringi 
pension is to be granted to a Government servant. Even assuming that the 
rule by implication requires three months' notice to be given to a Government 
servant of the description referred to therein before retiring him from service 
the requirement of the rule cannot be said to be violated if instead of three 
E 
months' notice, payment of three months salary ahd allowance is made. The 
object of the notice being to give sufficient time to the Govemment servant 
whom it is intended to retire from service to find employment" elsewhere and 
to prevent hin1 from his being suddenly left in lurch without any rri_eans of 
livelihood, ·no prejudice can be said to be caused to the Government servant 
if in lieu of three months' notice. he is given three months salary and allow-
ances. In fact he is put in a more advantageou9 pos.:.tj_on by being paid three 
months' salary and allowances instead of the notice for that period as he is 
thereby relieved of the obligation to spend his time in the office attending to 
F 
his duty and gets all the time to himself which he can utilize in finding an 
alternative job or se!ting his affairs. 
Therefore if the ·appointing authO:rity 
wahts to exercise its right to retire a government servant who has attained 
the age of 55 years, there is nothing to debar it from validly doinQJ so by 
payment to him of a sum equivalent to the amount of bis pay and allowances 
for the period of notice. (895 F-H, 896 A-BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
1970. 
Civil Appeal No. 1601 of 
G 
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 20-2-70 of the 
Punjab and Haryana High Court in LP.A. No. 552 of 1968. 
V. C. Mahajan and S. S. Khanduja, for the Appellant. 
0. P. Sharma, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JASWANT SINGH, J.-The question that arises for decision in 
this appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Punjab and 
7-725SCl/76 
H 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. (1976] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Haryana against its Judgment and order dated February 20, l 970 in 
L.P.A. No. 552 of 1968 is whether under Rule 5.32(c) of the Punjab 
Civil Service Rules, Vol. II, the Government can retire an employee 
B 
on or after he attains the age of 55 years by giving him three months' 
°' 
salary and allowances in lieu of three months' notice. 
The facts giving rise to the appeal lie in a ~hart compass 
and 
may be stated thus; 
Before the partition of the country, the appellant joined the Veteri-
nary Department of the Punjab Government as an Assistant Surgeon 
on December 1, 1933. 
Iri course of time, he was appointed as 
Director of Animal Husbandry and Warden of Fisheries which post 
he held from March 16, 1957 to August 14, 1959, when Shri PritaD 
C 
Singh Brar was appointed Director in his place. 
On Shri Pritam 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Singh Brar's attaining the age of superannuation, the appellant was 
again appointed as Director, Animal Husbandry, on regular basis on 
August 4, 1965. 
On September 2, 1967, the appellant was served 

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