NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. versus S.M.K. KHAN

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1092 · Decided: 24-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2b09J 4 s.c:R 1092 
NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDiA LTD. 
v. 
S.M.K. KHAN 
Civil Appeal No.1622 of 2009 
MARCH 24, 2009 
(R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
Retirement - Compulsory retirement, in terms of service 
C rules/regulations, on review of performance/service record of 
employee on reaching a specified age, where retention is not 
in interest of the institution or of utility to the employer -
Different from, compulsory retirement on specific charge of 
misconduct, where misconduct is the basis for punishment -
D On facts, when employee-respondent attained the specified 
age i.e. age of 55 years, his case was reviewed under regulation 
12 to consider whether he should be continued in service 
beyond the age of 55 years - Competent authority found 
respondent unfit for retention and proposed to compulsorily 
E retire him from service - Meray plea by respondent - Service 
continued for one year beyond 55 years - During extension 
period of one year, performance of respondent again found 
unsatisfactory -Competent authority thereafter compulsorily 
retired respondent from service - Validity of - Held: Order of 
F compulsory retirement was sustainable with reference to the 
requirements of regulation 12 - It was neither a punishment 
nor was it stigmatic - Continuation of respondent beyond 55 
years was not because his service was satisfactory, but out of 
leniency, for a specific period somewhat on the lines of 
probation -
There was merely a postponement of the 
G compulsory retirement which was to take place earlier - There 
was no second-appraisal of service performance upto 55 years 
-
Indian Airlines Employees Service Regulations -
Regulation 12. 
H 
1092 
NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. V. 
1093 
S.M.K. KHAN 
Retirement - Compulsory retirement, in pursuance of a A 
i 
valid condition of service enabling the employer to prepone 
the retirement - Held: Need not be preceded by any enquiry 
and the principles of natural justice have no application -
Natural justice. 
Respondent was employed in Indian Airlines Limited B 
(IAL), the predecessor of appellant. When respondent 
"' 
attained the age of 55 years his case was reviewed under 
~ 
Regulation 12 of the Indian Airlines Employees Service 
Regulations to consider whether he should be continued c 
in service beyond the age of 55 years. On review, the 
competent authority found respondent unfit for retention 
and issued notice dated 11-5-1998 proposing to retire him 
from service w.e.f. 10-8-1998 under Regulation 12. 
However in view of the fervent plea made by respondent 
\. 
and his assurance of improvement in performance, the D 
competent authority continued the service of respondent 
for one year beyond 55 years, but made his retention 
beyond period of one year subject to the outcome of the 
review to be carried out after monitoring his attendance 
and performance during the extension period. During the E 
--
extension period of one year, the competent authority 
~ 
again found the performance of respondent to be 
unsatisfactory and issued show cause notice dated 27-
5-1999 in pursuance of which respondent gave reply and 
on consideration of such reply, the competent authority F 
decided not to con?tinue respondent in service and 
compulsorily retired him from service w.e.f 26-8-1999. 
Respondent approached the Industrial Tribunal which did 
not grant any relief to him. Respondent filed writ petition 
..., 
on which a Single Judge of the High Court set aside the G 
award of the Tribunal and the order of compulsory 
retirement. An intra-court appeal filed by IAL was 
dismissed by a Division Bench of tl:ie High Court which 
held that after the decision to continue the respondent in 
.... 
service beyond 55 years, the only complaint against H 
1094 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A respondent was unauthorized absence; that on account 
._
of the inconsistency in the evidence as to the number of 
days of absence without permission, the period of 
unauthorized absence was uncertain; that the 
respondent was punished by way of compulsory 
8 
retirement, for such unauthorized absence; and that in 
the absence of a charge with specific particulars of 
misconduct or an enquiry into such charge resulting in a 
c 
D 
definite finding in regard to the misconduct, the 
..,. 
compulsory retirement was liable to be set aside. 
In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for 
consideration was whether the appellant wa

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