OM PRAKASH SOOD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1020 · Decided: 26-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
OM PRAKASH SOOD 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
AUGUST 26, 2003 
B 
[M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Superannua!ion-Age-Determination of-Employee holding a post in 
C which superannuation age was 60 years-Offered hisher post in which 
superannuation age was 58 years-Acceptance with condition that he should 
be allowed to revert to his earlier post and retire at the age of 60 years-Not 
replied by the Department-Order of superannuation on attaining age of 58 
years-Held not justified-Since the Department neither accepted nor rejected 
D the condition and the employee was allowed to work in the earlier post in 
which the age of superannuation was 60 years. 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 136--Special leave Petition-Power 
under-Held, such power is unfettered and io be invoked when it is concluded 
by the Court that a person has been dealt with arbitrarily. 
Appellant was working on the post of Technical Assistant, the age 
of superannuation whereof was 60 years. Subsequently post of Key Board 
Operator was created by the Department, the age of superannuation 
whereof was also 60 years, which was later reduced to 58 years. Appellant 
was promoted to the post of Key Board Operator on ad hoc basis but was 
F reverted as he did not qualify the trade test. Again when he qualified the 
trade test he was offered the post. Appellant f!lade representation putting 
the condition that he 'Y,Ould accept the offer only if he were allowed to 
revert to his original post and retire at the age of 60 and not at 58; 
Respondent department did not reply. Appellant had been ,drawing salary 
G of Technical Assistant; he used to sign the attendance register as Technical 
Assistant which was being authenticated by two gazetted officers. On 
appellant's attaining the age of 58 years, he was superannuated. 
Appellant's request to consider his previous representation was not replied 
by the respondent. Therefore, appellant moved the Assistant Labour 
Commissioner, and the respondent submitted that appellant had not 
H 
1020 
0.P. SOOD v. U.0.1. 
1021 
unequivocally refused to take up the po~t of Key Board Operator. Hence A 
appellant gave his unequivocal refusal to hold the post and respondent 
was directed to reply to appellant's representation. On not getting any 
reply from the respondent, appellant moved Central Administrative 
Tribunal which dismissed the application and held that just because the 
appellant had been signing the attendance register as Technical Assistant, B 
it does not mean that he had worked in that capacity and that there is no 
question of conditional acceptance and hence his plea to revert back cannot 
be acceded to as the stand of the department was that the post of Technical 
Assistant got abolished when the appellant got promoted; and that the two 
other posts of Technical Assistant were provisional as the two incumbents 
holding the post could not qualify the trade test for promotion. Appellant's C 
review application was also dismissed by the Tribunal. 
In appeal to this Court respondent contended that since the 
appointment to the post of Key Board Operator was conditional, he would 
not be allowed to revert back; that the post of Technical Assistant stood 
abolished since 1988; that mere signing as Technical Assistant did not give D 
the appellant right to serve in that post; and that no case is made out for 
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.1. Since the appellant continued to work as Technical E 
Assistant and has refused to accept the post of Key Board Operator and 
continued to serve till the last day of reaching his superannuation i.e. 58 
years as available to the posts of Technical Assistant and no effort to cut-
short his career and make him retire even by a day earlier than 60 years 
would amount to negation of legally pr-0tected rights. Therefore, the notice F 
of retirement is liable to be quashed and set aside. There was no 
acceptance, implicit or otherwise that he accepted the post of Key Board 
Operator on the terms and conditions offered by the respondents. On the 
.contrary, the appellant, h·ad clearly kept the counter condition that he will 
accept the offer of appointment to the post of Key Board Operator only 
if he was allowed to revert to his original post of Technical Assistant and G 
retire after reaching the age of 60 years and not at the age of 58 years •. 
However, the respondents are taking advan

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