STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. versus C.P. SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 46 · Decided: 04-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 46 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
v. 
C.P. SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1195 of 2007) 
APRIL 04, 2014 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Service Law - Retirement - Retirement age -
DetE~rmination of - Applicable Rules - Respondent No. 1 
C appointed initially in the State of Ajmer and governed by the 
Central Civil Service Regulations - State of Ajmer integrated 
with the State of Rajasthan in the year 1956 whereupon 
respondent no. 1 absorbed in the serv;ces of the State of 
Rajasthan - Respondent no. 1 exercised option ulr. 11 of the 
D 1957 Rules and elected to be governed, as regards leave and 
pension, by the rules applicable to him immediately before 
the appointed day i.e. the Central Civil Service Regulations 
- Subsequently however, in 1974, respondent no.1 made to 
retire on attaining the age of 55 years as provided under the 
E 1951 Service Rules - Whether respondent No.1 entitled to 
continue in service 'upto the age of 58 years i.e., the age of 
retirement as per the Central Civil Service Regulations - Held: 
Since Respondent No. 1 opted for the Central Civil Service 
Regulations as a whole, his retirement benefits had to be 
F governed by the provisions contained in the said Regulations 
including the age of retirement as applicable at the relevant 
date when he could be retired - Once the State of Rajasthan, 
with the previous approval of the Central Government, gave 
option to Respondent No. 1 not confined to any particular age 
G of retirement but to elect between the Central Civil Service 
Regulations and the Rules of 1951, Respondent No.1 cannot 
be subsequently deprived of the benefits of enhanced age of 
retirement accruing to him on account of amendments in the 
Regulations made in the year 1962 when Respondent No.1 
H 
46 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. v. C.P. SINGH & · 47 
ORS. 
was still in service - After amendment in the Regulations, his A 
retirement age legally became 58 years - Central Civil 
Service Regulations Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 -
Rajasthan Services (Protection of Service Conditions) Rules, 
1957-r.11. 
Respondent No.1 was appointed initially in the State · 8 
of Ajmer and was governed by the Central Civil Service 
Regulations. The State of Ajmer was integrated with the 
State of Rajasthan w.e.f. 01.11.1956. Respondent no.1 was 
absorbed in the services of the State of Rajasthan from 
that date. He exercised option under Rule 11 of the C 
Rajasthan Services (Protection of Service Conditions) 
Rules, 1957 and elected to be governed, as regards leave 
and pension, by the rules applicable to him immediately 
before the appointed day i.e. the Central Civil Service 
Regulations. Subsequently however, respondent no.1 · D 
was· made to retire on attaining the age of 55 years on 
19.6.1974 as provided under the Rajasthan Service 
Rules, 1951. 
Respondent No.1 filed suit claiming that he was· E 
illegally retired at the age of 55 years and also sought a 
decree that he was entitled to continue in service till 
30.6.1977 under the Central Civil Service Regulations. The • 
suit was dismissed. Appeal filed by respondent no.1 was 
also dismissed. Second Appeal preferred by Respondent F 
No.1. was, however, allowed by the High Court. The High 
Court decreed the suit of Respondent No.1 and declared 
that he was entitled to continue in service upto the age 
of 58 years, i.e., the age of retirement as per the Central 
Civil Service Regulations. The High Court held that 
though Immediately prior to re-organisation of State of G 
Rajasthan, i.e., 30.10.1956, the age of superannuation 
under the Regulations was also 55 years but on account 
of amendment in the year 1962 it had been raised to 58 
years and, therefore, in the year 1974 when the State of 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 
Rajasthan decided to consider case of Respondent No.1 
for retirement he should have been given the benefit of 
provisions in the Regulations as existing on that date and 
not provisions in the Rules of 1951. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A perusal of the judgment and order under 
appeal shows that the High Court noticed the relevant 
facts correctly and, on the basis of admitted facts, 
decided the question of law in favour of Respondent 
No.1 by holding that the option in respect of leave and 
pension exercised by Respondent No.1 made the Central 
Civil Service Regulations applicabl.e to his service 
conditions re

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