LexS.N. PALLEGAL versus STATE OF MYSORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.A
B
c
D
E
'
G
H
S. N. PALLEGAL
v.
STATE OF MYSORE
December 22, 1972
[A. N. GROVER AND A. K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.]
199
My•ore Civil $ervice Regulations Eighrh Edition (1953)
of An
:94--Age of superannuation under Article whether SS or 60.
The appellant was an officer of the old State of Mysore.
After the
St~tcs Reorganitation Act cl 1956, he e111ercd .eivice of the new Stato
of Mysore constituted under that Act. The appellant was entitled to
the benefits of the service rules which obtai:ned before his transfer to
the new State of Mysore, the relevant rules being the Mysore Services
Regulations as they stood on 1 November, 1956. According to the
State of Mysore the appellant was due to retire at the age of 55 years.
He Cl~imed ho\vever in a writ petition before the High Coon that
the. uge af superannuation under the rules was
60 years.
The
High
Court !rejected the petition.
In appeal before this Court it was com-
mon
ground
between
the
parties that it was the Eighth Edition of
the Ref!Ulations published in 1953 that was applicable to the case.
HELD : Art. 294 of the Eighth Edition does not leav~ any room
for doubt on the point at issue. The discretion to retire
an
officer
whether of the superior service or of the inferior service at 55 years
has been· given in clear and unmistakable language
to
GoveIP>ment.
All officers attaining that age
1may be required to retire.'
It is clear
that the officers themselves have no option in the matter • If Govehl·
men! d<cides to retire them, they must go out. At the
nme time,
however, the Government has been givc.n the discretion to retain them
in eervice if the Government c®Oiders them to
be fit
and efficient.
There is nothing in. the language of Art. 294 which makes it incumbent
on Government to give this extension after the age of SS years.
[20SBC)
1'here \Vas therefore no merit in the appeal which must accordingly
be dismissed. ·
M. Narosimhachar v. The State of Mysore, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 981 and
State of Mysore v. Padmanabhacharya, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 994, applied.
Union of India and Ors. v. R. V. Sadasiva
Murthy
etc.,
Civil
Appeal• Nos. 476 to 478 of 1969; Judgment delivered on 15 July 1969.
distinguished,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2262 of
1971.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
November 25, 1969 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition
No. 6201 of 1969.
C. K. Daphtary and R. B. Datar for the appellant.
B. Sen and M. Veerappa for the respondent.
--
200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S,C.R,
The 1 udgment of the Court was delivered by
MUKHERJEA, J.
This appeal by special leave is directed
against a judgment of the High Court of Mysore by which that
High Court disposed of several writ petitions in which the principal
question at issue was a common question of law. The appellant
was an officer of the old State of Mysore.
After the States Re-
organisation Act of 1956, he entered service of the new State of
Mysore constituted under that Act. The question that has arisen
is : what is the superannuation age of the appellant ? It is admitt-
ed that the appellant was entitled to the benefits of the service
rules which obtained before his transfer to the new State of
Mysore. The relevant rules are the Mysore Services Regulations
as they stood on 1 November 1956. According to the appellant
the age of superannuation' is 60 years while according to the res-
pondent the age of superannuation is 55 years.
Difficulty has
arisen for two reasons.
First, ihere are two versions of the pre-
1956 Service Regulations, one to be found in the Seventh Edition
of the Regulations published in 1945 and the other to be found
in the Eighth Edition published in 1953. Secondly, there are
three decisions of this Court, two of which namely M. Nara:Nnha-
char v. The State of Mysore(-1) and State of Mysore v. Padmana-
bhacharya(') interpreting Art. 294 of the Eighth Edition h!tve
held that 55 years is the age of superannuation while the third
decision in Union of India and ors: v. R. V. Sadasiva Murthy
etc.(') dealing with Art. 305 of the Seventh Edition which inci-
dentally corresponds to Art. 294 of the Eighth Edition has held
.that the age of superannuation is 60 years.
According to the
High Court the latest decision of this Court in Union of India
anil ors. v. R. V. Sadasiva Murthy etc.(') which has supported
the petitioners' case of 60 years being the age of superannuationExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.