LexP. RADHAKRISHNA NAIDU & OTHERS versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
365
P. RADHAKRISHNA NAIDU & OTHERS
v.
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS
December 9, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J. AND M. H. BEG, J.]
Constitution of India, Articles 16, 32 and 311, Government servantl cone·
pu/sory retirement, whether violates Art. 16-Ban on re-empluyment by semi·
Government Institutions, whether within the scope of Art. 32-Availabi/iry ·of
alternative remedy.
On the completion of their 25 years of qualifying service, the appellants were
compulsorily retired in public interest, and were to receive 3 months salary in
lieu of notice.
Thereafter, the respondent Government passed a general order
forbidding re-employment of compulsorily retired persons in semi-Governmellt
institutions. The appellants filed writ petitions under Ar•. 32 of the Constitution
. challenging the compulsory retirement orders as violative of Art. 16 and the
ban on such re-employment as a stigma under Art. 311.
Disntissing the petitions, the Court,
A
B
c
HELD : ( 1) Article 16 does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable rulea
for compulsory retirement.
The provision for compulsory retirement in public
interest after the completion of a certain period of qualifying service or attain-
D
ment of a certain age, applies to all Government servants and as such it is not
open to challenge either under Art. 14 or under Art. 16, and the individual
application of the order in a given case cannot offend Art. 16.
[367-D-H]
T. C. Shivacharana Singh. v. State of Mysore A.l.R. 1965 S.C. 280, applied.
Union of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha, & Anr. [1971] 1 S.C.R. 791; Tara Singh
etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [197S] 3 S.C.R. 1002,
and B.
Narayana
Murthy & Or:r. v. State of Andhra Pradesh etc. [1971] Supp. S.C.R. 741, refer-
E
red to.
(2) The Government order forbidding
re-appointment
of
compulsorily
retired persons as a stigma within the meaning of Article 311 is not an infringe-
ment of fundamental rights, and the enforcement of violation of Article 311
does not come within the scope of Article 32. The ban is not apinst anyone
individually and has a reasonable basis and some relation to the suitability for
employment or appointment to an office. [367 A-B, m-A::JJ]
Krishna Chander Nayar v. Chairman, Central Tractor Organisation & Ors.
[1962] 3 S.C.R. 187; Shyam Lal v. State of U.P. [1955] 1 S.C.R.
26;
Tata
·Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Com-
mercial Taxes & Anr. [1967] 2 S.C.R. 751 and Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. The
State of Madhya Bharat & Anr. [1964] 6 S.C.R. 857, referred to.
F
{3) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has by an administrative
order
<:onstituted a review committee for each department to review orders of retire-
meat ill public intere3t and to revoke ud modify the same, if necessary. The
G
petitioners made representations to the reYiew comntittee, and are not justified
in applying to this Court. [370A-B]
·
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 97 of 1976.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
S. Ramchandra Rao and B. Kanta Rao for the appellants in W.P.
~~~
H
S. Ramachandra ·Rao and A. Subba Rao, for the appellants in
W. P. No. 114/76.
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 S.C.R.
A
,
N~ren De, 4ttorney General, P. P. Rao, Sr. Advocate and T. V. S.
Naraszmhacharz, for the respondents in W.P. No. 97176.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
P. Parmeshwara Rao, and G. Narayana Rao, for respondents in
W.P. No. 114/76.
·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J. ~~e writ petitions. ~hallenge the compulsory retire-
ment of the petitioners.
The petitioners were retired compulsorily
under order dated 23 September, 1975.
The order dated 23 September 1975 in the case of the first
petitioner in writ petition No. 97 of 1976 may be referred to as
typical of orders in the case of other petitioners.
This order state<l
first that the said first petitioner completed 25 years of qualifyin o
11ervice on 24th July, 1975.
The order next stated that the Com~
missioner of Police being the authority to make a substantive appoint-
ment to the post of Inspector of Police is of opinion that it is in
public interest to retire the persons mentioned in the order.
The order thereafter states that in exercise of the powers con-
ferred by Clause (a) of sub-rule (2) /sub-rule 2(A)
read
with
Clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of rule 3
of
the Andhra Pradesh
Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961/sub-rule (1) of rule 2/rule 3 read
with sub-rule ( 1) oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.