TAKHATRY SHIVADATTRAY MANKAD versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 05-05-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA, S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TAKHATRY SHIVADATTRAY MANKAD 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
MAY 5, 1989 
• 
[G.L. OZA ANDS. RATNAVEL PAN!JlAN, JJ.] 
B 
y 
I 
Bombay Civil Services Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 
1958-Ru/es 188 & 189-Pension and gratuity-Reduction of-Pro-
ceedings-Whether can be taken after a Government servant's retire-
... 
ment. 
'--,.._, 
c 
Junagadh State Pension & Parwashi Rules 1932-Rule 241-A, 
Clauses 3, 13 and 15-Government"servant-Reduction in pension and 
~ 
gratuity-Whether permissible. 
This appeal is directed against the order of the Gujarat High 
Court upholding the order dated the 15th November, 1977 passed by 
D the State of Gujarat whereby the amounts of gratuity and pension pay-
able to the appellant on superannuation were reduced by 50 per cent. 
The appellant was born on January 15, 1909 and after obtaining a 
~ 
Degree in Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) joined the service in the 
former State of Junagarh and as such was governed by the Junagadh 
E 
State Pension and Parwashi Allowances Rules of 1932 which were duly 
codified and published in the Junagadh State Account Code, State of 
Junagadh was integrated into the State of Saurashtra on 20.1.1949 and 
the services of the appellant were absorbed in the State of Saurashtra. 
The conditions of service of the absorbed servants were duly protected 
and a proclamation providing a guaraDtee that the service conditions of .\ 
F 
absorbed servants could not be varied to their disadvantage was issued 
on 20.1.49-that being the date of merger of the State. 
The State of Saurashtra made the Saurashtra Covenanting State 
Servants (Superannuation Age) Rules, 1955. Rule 3(i) thereof provided 
that a Government servant shall, unless for special reasons otherwise 
G 
directed by Government retire from service on his completing 55 years 
of age. After the merger of the State of Saurashtra with State of 
-r· 
Bombay the old Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959 were made appli· 
cable to Saurashtra area and on l. 7 .59 the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 
1959 were promulgated. As per clause (c)(2)(ii)(l) of Rule 161, Govern-
H 
ment servants in the Bombay Service of Engineers Class I were to retire 
on reaching the a~e of 55 years. 
214 
-
:::'.:!; 
TAKHATRY SHIVADATTRAY v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
215 
The appellant was compulsorily retired by the State on 12.10.1961 
with effect from 12.1.1962 when he had completed the age of S3 years. 
The appellant challenged that order by means of writ before the High 
Court and having remained unsuccessful, he took up the matter before 
this Court and this Court by its judgment dated 9.4.69 allowed the 
appeal and declared that the appellant was entitled to remain in service 
until he attained the age of SS years and that the impugned order 
compulsorily retiring him at the age of S3 years was invalid and 
ineffective. 
In order to give effect to this Court's order mentioned above, the 
Government of Gujarat on 4.8.69 intimated the appellant that he will 
be deemed to have remained in service uptil 14.1.64, when he attained 
the age of 55 years. as he had attained that age prior to the decision of 
this Court. 
A 
B 
c 
In the meantime the age of superannuation of the employees of the 
State of Gujarat had been raised from 55 years to S8 years. The appel-
lant· in order to take benefit of the change moved a writ petition before 
D 
the High Court of Gujarat but remained unsuccessful. Thereupon he 
filed a special leave petition before this Court. This Court by its order 
dated 21.7.1975 declined to interfere. Thus the appellant was not 
/>-. 
entitled to continue in service beyond SS years of age. 
It may be mentioned that prior to his compulsory retirement there 
were three departmental inquiries pending against the appellant, on 
grounds of slackness in supervision. overpayment to contractors and 
loss to the Government and payment in advance of the receipt of goods. 
The first inquiry was initiated on 6.2.61, second on 11.4.1963 and the 
third on 17 .8.63. These inquiries remained pending against the appel-
lant till 197 i. 
The appellant filed yet another Special Civil Application No. 504 
of i 97 ! before the High Court praying for issue of a writ of mandamus 
directing the State to pay to the appellant all his outstanding salary. 
allowances, including due inrrements after the efficiency .bar from 
12.1.1 %l to 14.1.1964 together with 6% interest. An application for 
interim relief was also filed but was withdrawn later on the representa-
tion 

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