UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SHAIK ALI

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 17-10-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
B 
F 
G 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
SHAIK ALI 
OCTOBER 17, 1989 
[A.M. AHMADI AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] 
Indian Railway Establishment Code: Rule 2046(h)(ii)-Prema-
ture retirement-Permissible only when railway servant has attained the 
age of55 years-Similar to F.R. 56(j). 
Liberalised Pension Rules, 1950/Railway Pension Manual: Rule 
2(2)/paragraph 620(ii)-Premature retirement-Requirement of public 
interest-Need for incorporation by way of amendment-Stressed. 
The .respondent, employed as Yard Master In the South Central 
Railway, was on duty between 14.00 and 22.00 hours on 23rd 
February' 86. In the absence of a reliever, he was to continue his duty 
till 8.00 hours on 24th February' 86. He allowed his staff to take meals and 
since they did not return within a reasonable time, he went towards the 
cabin where the staff usually took their meals. The Divisional Safety 
Officer who was coming down from the cabin, enquired of the respon-
dent's identity. The respondent in turn asked for the identity of the said 
officer. The officer was annoyed at this and threatened the respondent 
with dire consequences. Immediately thereafter the respondent was 
placed under suspension. Further suspension followed and the respon-
dent was visited with the order of premature retirement under Rule 
2046 of Indian Railway Establishment Code. 
Respondent challenged the said order before the Central 
A.dministrative Tribunal and the Tribunal, relying on its decision in 
Shri Gafoor Mia & Ors. v. Director, DMRL, AISW 1988 2 CAT 277 
held that the Divisional Railway Manager who passed the impiugned 
order of premature retirement was not competent to make such an 
order, and set aside the order. 
This appeal, by special leave, is against the Tribunal's order. 
Though under sub-clause (ii) of rule 2046(h), a class Ill employee can-
not he retired prematurely after he has attained the age of 55 years, 
(unlike officers of class I & II) this clause was Invoked In the case of 
respondent who was adniittedly in class III service and did not attain. the 
H 
age of sS-years. Appellant relied on para 620(11) of the Railway Pension 
456 
U .0 .I. v. SHAIK ALI 
457 
Manual which gives the authority power to remove from service a rail-
way servant ·;Iller he completed 30 years service. 
On behiiJf of Respondent, it was contended that the appellant had 
been shifting its stand and trying to support the order on an extraneous 
ground which did not fmd a place in the order viz. unsatisfactory 
service record of the respondent; and there is no basis for it in view of 
the promotio~ secured by the respondent, the last of which was just 
before the premature retirement. 
Dismissing the appeal, Ibis Court, 
HELD: 1.1 The order was passed under Rule 2046(b)(ii)'i1f the 
Indian Railway Establishment Code without verifying whether or not 
the incumbent had attained the age of fifty-five years. Since the respon-
dent was indisputably in class III service at the time the order came to 
be made, his case was governed by the second clause of Rule 2046(h). 
The impugned or•r recites that the respondent bad already completed 
thirty years of qualifying service but it does not state that be had 
attained the age of fifty-five years. According to the respondent be was 
running 54th year on that date. That obvionsly took bis case out of the 
purview of the said role. Even if the order was intended to be under 
Rule 2(2) of the Liberalised Pension Rules, 1950, this requirement had 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
to be satisfied. Th~ immediate and proximate reason for passing the 
impugned order was undoubtedly the unfortunate incident of 23/24th 
February, 1986. But for that incident there was no occasion for the 
Review Committee to examine the case of the respondent. If the service 
record of the respondent was so bad as is now sought to be made out, be 
would not have been promoted to the post of Asstt. Yard Master on 
22nd August, 1984 and later to the post of Yard Master on 31st 
January, 1986. The order of premature retirement is punitive in nature F 
and having been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural 
justice, cannot he allowed to stand. [426G-H; 460F-G; 463A-B) 
1.2 F .R. 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules is substantially the same 
as Rule 2046(h)(ii) of the Railway Establishment Code and Rule 2(2) of 
the Liberalised Pension Rules, 1950 is substantially the same as G 
paragraph 620 of Railway Pension Manual. Since Rule 2(2) bas been 
struck down a

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