STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus GIRISH BIHARI AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 53 · Decided: 14-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
GIRISH BIHARI AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 14, 1997 
[AM. AHMADI, CJ., SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND 
K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ:) 
Service Law : 
A 
B 
All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, R. 16. C 
Service-Extension of~ef ore superannuation-Cancellation of exten-
sion before it actually came into effect-Held : Such cancellation of extension, 
not invalid. 
Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 115 : 
Estoppel-Applicability of-Party pleading estoppel did not alter his 
position-Held : Plea of estoppel, rejected. 
Administrative law : 
Natural justice-Audi alteram partem-Hearing-Gralit of-Order of 
extension of servic~eyond superannuation-cancellation of extension 
before in actually came into effect-Held : Retiring employee had no vested 
right-Hence, it was not necessary to grant him hearing before cancellation of 
extension order. 
The respondent, a member of the Indian Police Service, was to retire 
D 
E 
F 
on superannuation. The Governor passed an order for extension of the 
service of the respondent for six months from the date of his retirement 
under Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) 
Rules, 1958. Subsequently, the Governor cancelled his earlier order of 
extension before it actually came into effect. The respondent challenged the G 
aforesaid 
order before the Central Administrative Tribunal on the 
grounds that the order granting extension had created a vested right in 
the respondent to continue for a period of six months; that the order of 
cancellation of extension passed without an opportunity to the respondent 
of being heard, was vitiated on account of violation of the principles of H 
53 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997) 2 S.C.R. 
A natural justice. The Tribunal allowed the petition of the respondent. Hence 
this appeal. 
B 
On behalf of the respondent the principle of Estoppel was pleaded. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Till the order of extension of service could become 
operative, on right under the order had vested in the incumbent. It was, 
therefore, not necessary to grant him hearing before the extension order 
was cancelled. The respondent did not ask for an extension. It was 
C unilateral action on the part of the State/appellant. The respondent may 
or may not have accepted the offer. Till the order come into force no vested 
right could have arisen. If the order of extension did not create any right, 
the cancellation order could not have withdrawn any such right. Hence, 
the question of right to hearing did not arise and there is no violatio~ of 
rules of natural justice. [58-F-G] 
D 
Sharwan Kumar !ha v. State of Bihar, [1991) Supp. 1 SCC 310 and 
Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association v. State of Kar-
nataka, [1991) 2 sec 604, held inapplicable. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Lok Shikshan Sansatha & Ors., [1971) 
E 2 sec 410, cited. 
•· 
1.2. There is no statutory estoppel in favour of the respondent. The 
respondent did not plead that the he altered his position in any way on 
account of the extension order and hence the subsequent order of cancel-
F lation could not have prejudiced the respondent in any way. The principle 
of estoppel is not attracted in this case. [58-H, 59-A] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 795 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.5.96 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal at Lucknow Bench in O.A. No. 162 of 1996. · 
Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, H.N. Salve, M.C. 
Dhingra_ and P.C. Verma for the Appellants. 
H 
In-person for Respondent No. 1. 
-~-
STATEv. GIRISHBIHARI [AHMADI, CJ.) 
55 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
AHMADI, CJI. Leave granted. 
The respondent Dr. Girish Bihari, a member of the Indian Police 
Service, was to reach the age of Superannuation on 5th March, 1996 and 
therefore was to retire from service with effect from the afternoon of B 
31.3.1996 i.e. on the last date of the month in which he reached that age. 
On 20th March, 1996, the Governor, State of Uttar Pradesh by an order 
under Rule 16 of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement benefits) 
Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") passed an order for 
extension of the service of Dr. Girish Bihari for 6 months from the date of C 
his retirement i.e. 31.3.1996. On 23rd March, 1996, the Governor in exer-
cise of powers under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act issued the 
impugned order cancelling the earlier order dated 20th March, 19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.