LexU.P. STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT. CORPORATION AND ANR. versus K.C.P. SINHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
U.P. STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT.
CORPORATION AND ANR.
v.
K.C.P. SINHA
APRIL 24, 1996
{S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Se1vice Law :
U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Employees Service Rules,
1978 : Rule 27, clause (iv ),
as amended by Amendment Rules, 1988 :
Compuls01y retirement on attaining age of 50 years-Rule whether arbitrary
and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution for not prewibing any
minimum period of service-Held, no-Operation of amended ntle whether
retrospective-Held, Operates prospectively-Adverse remark~ in C.R-Held,
cannot be ignored.
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 & 16 read with Rule 27 (iv) of
U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Employees Service Rules, 1978
A
B
c
D
as amended by Amendment Rules 1988 : Rule providing for compulsory
retirement on attaining age of 50 years-Whether arbitrary and ultra vires for: E
not prescribing any minimum period of service-Held, no.
Rule 27 of the U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation
Employees Service Rules, 1978 was substituted by the Amendment Rules
of 1988. Clause (i) of the said amended rule prescribes 58 years as the age
of superannuation for its employees, while clause (iv) empowers the ap-
F
pointing authority, at any time in the public interest or in the interest of
Corporation, to retire an employee who has attained the age of 50 years.
The rule was brought into force on May 15, 1988.
The respondent had joined sen-ice with the appellant Corporation G
on January 18, 1977 on post of Marketing Officer. One of the terms of his
appointment was that he will be governed by the rules and l'egulations of
the Corporation framed from time to time. He was redesignated as
Marketing Manager on April 16, 1977 and was confirmed on that post by
order dated June 2, 1984 with effect frlim March 14, 1978. He started
officiating as Chief Marketing Manager under order dated March 12, H
689
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996} SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
19M4. In his confidential report for the year 1983-84, the Reviewin;; Officer
had on .May 15, 1985, among other adverse remarks, rated his performance
as poor. He was compulsorily retired from service on the recommendation
of a Screening Committee, by an order dated August 20, 1988 passed in
exercise of the powers under rule 27(iv).
B
c
On a writ petition, the High Court struck down rule 27(iv) being
violative of Articles l4 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as it did not
prescribe any minimum period of service and conferred arbitrary power
on the authority to pass an order of compulsory retirement of an employee
after 1, 2, 5, or HI years of service.
In the appeal by special leave, apart from submissions on merits of
the order of compulsory retirement, it was urged for the respondent that
his services have arbitrarily terminated, that clause (iv) of rule 27 could
not be given retrospective effect from 1977 and applied to the respondent,
and that the remarks made by the Reviewing Officer in respondent's
D confidential report for the year 1983-84 on May 19, 1985 after he had
ceased to be the Managing Director should be ignored.
E
By order dated August 27, 1990 the Court stayed the reinstatement
of the respondent on condition that the appellant will continue to pay 60%
of the salary to him and his agreeing that the receipt of the said payment
would be subject to further orders of the Court. The appellant Corporation
by its order dated January 12, 1995 appointed the respondent as Chief
Marketing Manager instead of paying him 60% of the salary without
obtaining his services.
F
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The order of compulsory retirement of the respondent
does not sutTer from any infirmity. [702-C]
2. It cannot be said that clause (iv) of Rule 27 of the U.P. State
G Mineral Development Corporation Employees Service Rules, 1978 sutlers
from the vice of arbitrariness and is violative of the provisions of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as it does not prescribe a minimum
length of service for the exercise of the power of compulsory retirement. It
is not obligatory that a provision regarding compulsory retirement must
H
always provide for a minimum period of service. Such a provision may be
U.P. STATE MINERAL DEV. CORPN. v. K.C.P. SINHA
691
open for question if having lixed a proper age of superannuation it permits A
a permanent servant to be retired at an early stage of his career. The HiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.