UNION OF INDIA ETC. versus K. R. TAHILIANI & ANR.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1092 · Decided: 26-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

. A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
1092 
UNION OF INDIA ETC . 
v. 
K. R. TAHILIANI & ANR. 
February 26, 1980 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. D. KDSIIAL, JJ.J 
Fundatnental Rflfcs-Rule 56(i) (i)-Scopc of--Governn1cnt servant 
of]i~ 
elating in a class I or class Tl post-If could be con1pulsorily retired. 
On the question whether a GovErnment servnnt olTiciating in a class 1 or 
class JI service or post tould be retired compulsorily by exercising pow'er under 
r. 56(j) (l) of the Fonda.mental Rules after he. has attained! the agC' of 50 years. 
JlELD: 1. Rule 56(j) (i) is mea.nt to cov'er only those who are in a post on 
a regular basis, that is, in a substantive capacity and not on an officiating basis 
only. [1094El 
2. A government servant ordinarily holds service at the pleasure of the State 
which means pleasure canalised by rules. 
[1093H] 
3. An officiating hand bas no right to the post and cannot be strictly said 
to be in tha.t service or post as a member of that servic'e. Jn short an officiating 
go\:ernment servant does not really b'e1ong to class I or class II service until he 
acquires a. right thereon. The stn1cture of the clause "if he is in class I or class 
II service or post" emphasises the natur'e of the service or post vis-a-vis 
the 
Govern1nent servant concerned. When a government servant belonging ttJ class 
I or class II service or post on a regular basis has to b'e retired compulsorily 
rule 56(j) (i) comes to the rescue of the Governn1ent. But if he is only a tem-
porary hand ¥/ho has no right to the post he can alw2.ys be reYerted to lhc post, 
if any, on which he has a lien. Sin1ilar is the po~ition of an officiating hand. 
[1094B-DJ 
4: Although the rule vests an absolute right in the appropriate authority to 
retire a government servant in public interest absolutis1n and arbitranness are 
F 
ccntrar:v to the scheme of the rules of this kind. Even while exercising lh.e po\ver 
under this rule the Stare should take care not to act arbitrarily, misguided by the 
absolute expression in the nde. 
[1094F-G] 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 850 of 1978 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
22-7-1977 of the Delhi High Court in LP.A. No. 97 of 1977. 
AND 
Civil Appeal No. 2008 of 1978. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and Order dated 
19-5-1978 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. 
Writ No. 
1592/76. 
G. L. Sanghi, R. B. Datar and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appel-
lant in both the appeals. 
• 
UNION v. K. R. TAlllLIANI (Krishna Iyer, J.) 
I 093 
• '< 
M. K. Ramamurthy, G. D. Gupta and Miss Anita for the Respon-
A 
• 
• 
' 
dent in CA No. 850/78. 
Shanti Bhushan and P. K. Pillai for the Respondent in CA No. 
2008/78 . 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-Two government servants have been retired 
from service in exercise of the powers vested in the Central Govern-
ment by Rule 56 (j) (i) of the Fundamental Rules. 
They 
have 
successfully 
challenged 
compulsory retirement by 
petitions under 
Article 226 of the Constitution and the Union of India has come up 
in appeal to this Court by special leave. 
The sole question to be 
decided is whether a government s·ervant officiating in a Class I or 
Class II service or post can be retired compulsorily by exercising the 
power under Rule 56 (j) (i) after he has attained the age of 50 
years. 
8 
c 
The biographical details of these two officials in government scr-
D 
vice need not detain us because the facts arc admitted and the only 
point at issue is whether Rule 56(j) (i) will apply to a government 
servant who is only officiating in a Class I or q~ss II post or service. 
We agree with the High Court that on a correct interpretation of that 
Rule, an officiating hand will not be caught in the claws of the com-
pulsory retirement provision. 
The reasons may briefly be stated by 
E 
u·s now although these have been elaborately set out by the High 
Court (in the Delhi case). 
We may extract the relevant part of the Ruic at this stage: 
"56. (j) Notwithstanding anything contained 
in this 
rule the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion 
F 
that it is in public inters! to do so have the absclute 
right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice 
Of not less than three months in 
writing or three months' 
pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. 
(i) If he is in Class I or Class II service or pest and had 
G 
entered Government service before attaining the age 
of thi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.