STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. versus M. N. SUNDARAJAN

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 19-08-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 
v. 
M. N. SUNDARAJAN 
August 19, 1980 
(R. S. SARKARIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J 
. 471 
Civil Services-A power to appoint whether includes the power to termiMte 
the appointment by compulsory retirement. 
Fundamental Rules, F.R. 56(d)-Compulsory retirement of Section Officer 
in State Secretariat-G. 0. providing that Review Committee be headed by Chief 
Secretary-Departmental Secretary heading Committee-'Decision' of Committee 
-Validity of. . 
Before June 27, 1973, a Section Officer in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat used 
to be a non-Gazetted Officer. The Government by Order G. 0. Ms. No. 1616, 
Public (Services J) dated June 13, 1973 made the post of a Superintendent of 
the Secretariat a Gazetted post and re-designated it as Section Officer, and by 
Government Order No. 1782, Public (Services-J.), dated June 27, 1973, provided 
that ill all matters relating to appointments, transfers, postings punishments and 
drawal of pay, they continued to be treated as non-gazetted Government servants 
until further orders. 
The respondent was recruited as a Clerk in the Indian Army in the year 
1943 ·and after demobilization was appointed in the Revenue Secretariat of the 
State Government (Appellant) from March 1948. He was promoted as Section 
Officer in April 1969 and he continued in the post till March 2, 1976 when 
he was compulsorily retired from service under Fundamental Rule 56(d). 
The respondent challenged his compulsory retirement in the High Court 
contending that the procedure set out in G.O. No. 761 dated March 19, 1973, 
envisaged that the Review Committee that had to consider the cases of Gazetted 
Government Officers in· the Secretariat should be headed by the Chief Secretary 
and not by the Departmental Secretary and since the Committee which reviewed 
his case was headed by a Departmental Secretary, the violation had vitiated the 
retirement order. 
The High Court. accepted this contention and quashed the 
retirement order. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
. that though under G. 0. No. 1782 Public (Service-I) dated June 27, 1973, all 
Superintendents or Section Officers were given the status of Gazetted Officers 
in matters like appointments, transfer and posting they continued to be treated 
as non-gazetted officers and that the constitution of the Review Committee head-
ed by a Departmental Secretary was valid. 
It was also contended that in the 
aforesaid Order, the word 'appointments' includes compulsory 'retirements', also. 
·c 
F 
G 
On the respondent's behalf it was submitted that the word 'appointments' 
ffi, 
in the order dated Ju~e 27, 1973 cannot be construed to include 'retirements' 
from or 'terminations' of service, for if that. had been the intention there would 
have been no difficulty in adding the word 'retirements' or 'terminations' along 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19811 1 S.C.R. 
with the words 'appointments, transfers, postings and p~nishments' in the Gov-
ernment Order and consequently a restricted interpretation should be. placed on 
this expression. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. The order of the High Court is set aside and the order of 
the respondent's compulsory retirement upheld. 
[475 HJ 
2. Unless a contrary intention appears from the context, a power to appoimt 
should include a power to terminate the appointment including termination by 
compulsory retirement in accordance with the terms and conditions of service. 
This fundamental principle underlies Section 16 of the General Clauses Act. 
[474 H-475 A] 
3. The power to terminate the appointment by compulso1y retirement or 
otherwise is a necessary adjunct of the power of appointment ~nd is exercised 
as an incident to or consequences of that power. 
Nothing in the Government 
Order No. 1782, dated June 27, 1973, militates against this rule of construction. 
[475 B] 
4. The "decision' of the Review Committee had no force proprio vigore. 
The 'decisions' were mere recommendations which did not, and could not, have 
a peremptory effect. 
The ultimate power to accept or not to accept the re-
commendations of the Review Committee and to take an effective and definitive 
decision vests in the Government. 
Even if there was some irregularity in the 
constitution of the Review Committee, that could not by itself, have the effect 
of vitiating the order of the respondent's compulsory retirement. [475 E-F] 
' 
In the instant case it was not the resp

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