S.P. DUBEY versus M.P.S.R.T. CORPN. AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 328 · Decided: 23-10-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
S.P. DUBEY 
v. 
' ' 
M.P.S.R.T. CORPN. AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 23, 1990 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950: S. 34/ M. P. State Road 
Transport'Corporation Employees Service Regulations. 1964: Regula-
tion 59-Private company taken over and merged with Corporation-
Age of Superannuation of existing staff at 60 years specifically pro-
tected-Whether amenable ta State Service Rules-Whether Regulation 
can override the directions issued under the Act. 
The age of superannuation for the employees of the private trans-
port company in which the appellant was initially employed was 60 
years_ When the said company was taken over by the State on August 
31, 1955, the notification specifically provided that the existing staff 
would not be adversely affected with regard to terms and conditions of 
service. Again, when the services of the staff of the taken-over company 
were transferred to the respondent-Corporation established under s. 3 
of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the memorandum dated 
May 4, 1962 recited the same assurance. A resolution passed by the 
Board of Directors of the Corporation on the same day also reiterated 
the said assurance. Subsequently, when the State Government issued 
directions on October 29, 1963 to the Corporation under s. 34 of the Act 
the said assurance was embodied therein too. However, Regulation 59 
of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service 
Regulations, 1964 framed by the Corporation under s. 45(2)(c) of the 
Act provided that the employees of the Corporation were liable to com-
pulsory retirement on the date of their completion of 58 years of age 
unless specifically permitted to continue. 
When the appellant was sought to.be retired from service in terms 
of Regulation 59 of the said Regulations on attaining the age of 58 years 
with effect from June 30, 1984 by a notice dated May 25, 1983, he 
challenged it by a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. It 
was dismissed by the High Court on the view that on August 31, 1955 
when the appellant became State Government employee his age of 
superannuation came to be governed by the statutory rules under Arti· 
cle 309 of the Constitution and the age of retirement of the State 
servants under the said rules being 58 years the appellant was rightly 
retired. 
328 
S.P. DUBEY v. M.P.S.R.T.C. 
329 
Allowing the appeal, the Court; 
A 
HELD: 1. The appellant was entitled to continue in service upto 
the age of 60 years. 
. 
· 
2.1 When. the State Government takes over a private company 
B 
and gives an assurance that conditions of· service of the existing staff. 
would not be adversely affected, it is but fair that the State Government 
should honour the same. 
2.2 In the instant case, the appellant was in service of the com· 
pany from 1947 to August 30, 1955 in which the age of superannuation 
of the employees was 60 years. The company was taken over by the 
State Government with effect from August 31, 1955 by a notification of 
the same date which specifically stated that the existing staff of the · 
company would not be adversely affected with regard to their condi-
tions of service. The State Service Rules which fixed the age of superan· 
nuation at 58 years could not thus be made applicable to the appellant 
and other employees of the taken-over company. 
3. Furthermore, the said assurance was also incOrporated in the 
directions issued by the State Government to the Corporation under 
s. 34 of the Act. The Corporation could not frame regulations contrary 
to the said directions and the age of superannuation which the appellant 
was enjoying under the State Government could not be altered to bis 
disadvantage by the Corporation. Regulation 59 framed by the Corpo-
ration was, therefore, not applicable to the appellant. 
The General Manager, Mysore State Road TranSport Corporation 
v. Devraj Urs and Anr.; [1976] 2 SCC 862, referred to. 
4. Since the appellant bad already attained the age of 60 years, be 
was only entitled to two years emoluments. The respondents are 
directed to pay the same to him within three months. [334B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1731 
of 1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dateq 26.4.1985 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 1729 of 1984. 
Avadh Behari and S.K. Gambhir for the Appellant. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
.. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R

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