LexRAILWAY BOARD versus A. PITCHUMANI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
fl c [C. A. RAILWA)' BOARD v. A. PITCHUMANI October 29, 1971 VAIDIALINGAM, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.] 187 Indian Railway Fundamental Rules, r. 2046 (F.R. 56) cl. (b)-Relire- ment a)le of ministerial Railway Servants fixed at 60-Note to cl. (b) .defining "Government Service" to include employees of ex-company-New Note dated December 23, 1967 redefining "government service" to include employeer; of ex-company only if the Rules of company had prol'ision similar to cl. (b)-C/assi(ication under new Note if discriminatory. Constitution of India, 1950, Art, 14-Discrimination-Railway Funda- mental Rules, r. 2046 (F.R. 56) cl. (b )-Classification under the Note to cl. (I) if discriminatory. , Rule 2046 (F.R. 56) of the Indian Railway Fundamental Rule> was &ulistituted, on January 11, 1967, by a new Rule. Unde'ir cl. (b J of the new Rule 2046 every ministe-rial railway servant who had entered gavern- 8 men! service on or beforoi March 31, 1938 and who satisfied the conditions mentioned in sub-els. (i) and (ii) of cl. (b) had a right to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years. The Note to the Rule defined .the exprestiiOn 'government service' as including service rendered in ex.- company and ex"'.State Railv1ay, and in a former provincial governn1ent. On December 23, 1967 a new Note was substituted which stated that the expression "government service'' included '_'service rendered in a former provincial government and in ex-company and ex-State Railways. if the E · rules of the company or the State had a provision similar to cl. (b) abow". F G B The respondent joined the service of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway company on August 16, 1927. The company was amalgamated with the Indian Railway Administration in 1947 and on such amalgam•" tion the respondent became the employee of the Indian Railway Adminis- tration He was a "ministerial servant" within the meaning of that ex- pression in «. 2046. On March 31, 1938, he held a permanent post in the company. After the introduction of r. 2046 on January 11, 1967, the Divisional Accounts Officer passed an order that the respondL nt was entitled to continue in office till he attained the age of 60 years. But, after the new Note to cl. (b) to r. 2046 was substituted on December 23, 1967, another order was passed to the effect that the respondent was retired from service on April 14, 1968, on attaining the age o'f 58 rears. The order also stated that this action was being taken in view of the new Note substituted on December 12, 1967. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the order re- tiring him from service. The High Court struck down the order and gave a declaration that the respondent was entitled to continue in ser,·ice till he attained the age of 60 years, on the ground that the order was discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Dimissing the appeal to this Court, . H~LD : The High Court ~as justified in striking down the order .iJirectmg. the respondent to retire from service. (I) Rule 2046 as it stoodih ongmally and on January. 11, 1967 treated the former emplo,·ees of 1 e ex-company, ex-State Railway and former provincial Government lSS SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972j 2 S.C.R. who were amalgamated with the Indian Administration in 1947 on a par with the other original emplo)''es of the Indian Railway Administration. In fact the Note to cl. (b) of r. 2046 incorporated in January 11. 1967 only reinforced this position. Read with the Note, under cl. (b), the respondent is a ministerial servant who had entered government service on or before March 31, 1938 and, therefore, by virtue of cl. (b) he wa• entitled to be retained in service till he attained the age of 60 years. [175 F, 197 CJ (2) Up to and inclusive of January 11, 1967, no distinction, inter 5e, apart from that made by els. (a) and (b) between officers of Indian Railway Administration, from whatever source they may have come, was made. The position admittedly has been changed by altering the defini· tion of the expression "government service" l>y the new Note to cl. (b) Thus on and after December 23, 1967, though all the employees are under the Indian Railway Administration, ti.ere will oe two sets .of rules relating to the age of retirement, depending npon the fact whether they were in the original employment of Indian Railway Ad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.