LexSHYAM LAL versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ,THE UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1954
March 3o.
26
. ·.~
. •I'
SUPREME COURT RE'.PORTS
"
.,
1SHYAM.LAL
v .
. L THE STATE OF UT1'AR PRADESH
2. THE UNION OF INDIA
[1955)
..
[B. K .. MuKHERJEA, S. · R.
DAs, BHAGWATI,
fAG~N"!ADffA DA~ and VENKATARAMA AYYA~ JJ.)
Constitution · of· lndia...:_Article Jll-Compulsory retirement-"
Whether amounts to' dismissal or r.emoval within the meaning of the
Articly-Civil . Serv1:ce
J?.egulations-Article
465-A
a,nd
Note
1
appended thereto-Interpretation of-Rule 4 of the new Rules pub-
lished in 1919-Government of India Act, Section 96-B.
·
He!/ that Artide 465-A and Note 1 thereto of the Civil
Service !{egulatio'ns tel~ting to
the
retlnng
pensions
of officers
was
applicable to
the
appellant Who was employed in 1923 as a
member of.'the Indian Service of ·Engineers because Rule 4 of the
new Rules published by the Government of India on 15th Novem~
ber, 1919,
providing for compulsory retirement of any
officer after
the con1pletion of 25 years' service was validated and confirmed by
section 96-:B-"of the
Government of India
Act, 1919, which came
into force.on 23rd December,. 1919, and the language of Note 1 to
Article 465,A published in 1920
clearly indicates that the Govern-
ment's right to co!npulsorily retire an officer .was not derived from
Note 1 as Note 1 assumed its eXistence aliunde 'and the Govern-
ment's right was'
derived from new l{ule 4
published
on 15th
November; 1919.
•
--
Held also, ·that· a coinpuls6ry retirement under the Civil Ser-
vices (Classification:, Control and :Appeal)
Rules, does not amount
to dismissal or
ren1oval withiµ the meaning 0£ Article· 311 of the
Constitution and therefore does
not f:all \Vithin the provisions
of
the said Article.
·
'
......
The word "removal" used synonymously \vith the term "dis-
missal" . generally implies that the· Officer is regarded as in some
manner
blan1e\vorthy) or
defiGient.
The · action of removal is
fouoded on some ground pe.rsonal
to the officer and
there is a
levelling
of so1ne in1putation or charge against him.
But there is
no su.ch' ele'ment of ·ch<1;rge qr 'imputat.ion in -the cacse ,of c9mpuls0ry
retirement: · In other words a: compulsory· retirement does not in-
volve ati.y stlgn1a·or ·implication of ·misbehaviou·r or incapacity.·
·' Dismissal or removal is
a punishment and involves loss of
benefit already earned. The Officer, dismissed· or removed, does not
get
pension; •Which .he. has earned.
On compulsory retirement the
Officer \vill be entitled to the pension that he has actually earned
and there is no diminution of the accrued benefit.
Rangachari v. Secretary of State (L.R. 64 I.A. 40; A.LR. 1937
P.C. 27) ; Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State (L.R. 64
I.A. 55;
A.LR. 1937 P.C. 37) ; I.M. Lat's case (LR. 75 I.A. 225 ; A.LR. 1948
'
•
--·
-
•
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
27
P.C. 121); Satischandra Anand v. The Union of India (1953 S.C.R.
655 at p. 659) referred to.
C1VIL
APPELLATE
JuRISDICTION:
Civil
Appeal
No. 248 of 1953.
Appeal under Article 132(1) of the Constitution of
India from the Judgment and Order dated the 1st
October, 1953, of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 379 of 1953.
N. C. Chatterjee (P. K. Chatterjee, with him) for the
appellant.
C. K. Daphtaray Solicitor-General for India, K
L.
Misra, Advocate-General of Uttar Pradesh
( C. P. Lal,
with them) for respondent No. 1.
C. K. Daphtary, Solictor-General for
India
(Porus
A. Mehta, with him) for respondent No. 2.
,
1954. March 30. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
DAs J.-This appeal arises out of an application
made by the appellant to the High Court of Allahabad
under article 226 of the Constitution praying for an
appropriate writ quashing the order made by the Presi-
dent of India on the 17th April, 1953, ordering the com-
pulsory retirement of the appellant who had completed
25 years' qualifying service. The High Court by its
judgment dated the 1st October, 1953, dismissed the
application but,
as
the case involved a substantial
question of the interpretation of the Constitution, the
High Court granted leave to the appellant to appeal to
this Court.
The material facts may be shortly stated as follows :
The appellant passed his Civil Engineering degree
examination from the Thomason College, Roorkee, in
1922. He stood first in order of merit and carried
away the Gold Medal and other prizes awarded to the
beExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.