LexThe Chhattisgarh Shaskiy Sewak (Adhivarshiki-Aayu) Adhiniyam, 1967
Chhattisgarh · state statute
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this actTHE MADHYA PRADESH SHASKI.YA SEVAK
(ADHIVARSHTKI-AYU) ADHINIYA1\i1, 1967
[No. 29 of 1%7]
Received the as~ent of the Governor, on the 22nd December, 1967;
assent first published in Lhe Madhya Prndesh Gazette
Extrn.ordinnry on the 23rd December, 1967
An Act to provide for tile age of S11p.:mmmmtion of Govenmient
:1ersmnts in the State of ,1adhya Pradesh and for certain
matt~rs connected therewith.
Be it enacted hy the M:tdbya Pradc:.h Legislature in the Eigh teeth Year of
the Republic of India as follows :-- -
l. Short title.-••-This Act may be citlkd the Mndhya Pradesh Shaskiya
Sevak (Adhivarshiyi-Ayu) Adhi niyam, 1967. ·
2. A mcn<1ment or Fundamcnta I Rules. - For rul~ 56 of the Fundamental
Rule appltcable to the State of I\fadhya Pradesh as subslituted by section 3 of
the Madhva Pradesh Shaskiva Sewak Anivarva Sevanivritti Kn Vidhimanya
rnku ran Adhi niyam, I 967 (5 or 1967) (hereafter ref erred l,) as tlie mid Act),
tll e following sh:11\ he substirnted, namely : --·
'· 56. (I) Subject to tile provisions of M a<lhya Pra cesh Ani vary a Seva
Ni v ri tti-Ayu) Ni yam, 1967 n ~ specified in the Schedule to the Madhya Pm dcsh
Sb,askiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1 %7, 1he dutr of compulsory
retirement of a Government servant other than class IV Government servant.
shall be the elate on which he :,ttains the age of 158 yen1s. ·
(2) The date of compulsory rct ire ment of Cl.1ss IV Govenimcnt servant
slrn 11 be the elate on which lte t\tLnins the age of 60 yen rs.
~[2. ,\ mcndment of Fund ament!ll Rule 56 as su us ti tu ted b)' Section 2 of the
Principnl Act. ---In 3eC! ion ?. of the Madhya P rad es h S has k iya Seva k ( Ad Iii vars hi ki
Ayu) Aclh iniyam, l 967 (No. 29 of l 967) (hereinafter referri;:d to a~ the principal
Act) after sub-rule (I) of R nle 56, the fol!owi ng sub-rule shall be inserted;
namcly---
(l-a) Su bjecL to the provisions of sub-rule (3), every Gov~rnment teacher
shall retire from service on the after noon of the last day of the month in which he
attains the age of sixty years:
Provided that a Government teacher whose date of birth is the first of a
month shall retire from service on the afternccn oft he last day of the preceding
month on a'.taining the age of si~ty years.
--··--··-······---________ .... .__, __ ,.... ..•... ~--·--·· -...--.....- --- ----· -----------------·-·--·-- ----
l. Tl1e age ha~ been raised to 58 years vi de M .P. Act No. 9 of 1976.
2. Insc r tcd by Act No. 35 of 1984. Published in M. P. Rajpatrn ( Asad har an)
dated 15• l 1-1984 Page 3065. This amendment shall be deemed to have
corrn; into effect from 5th September, 1984,
•
1134 Madhya Pradesh Services Mmm:il [Rr.l-2
Exaplanation.-For the purpose of this '.mb-mle "Teacher" means a
Gover1;1rnent servant by whatever designation called, cnuaged in leaching in an
educational institution induding technical or -11edic~I institutions, run by
Government}, - -
3. Amendment of the Madhya Pradesh District and Session Judgee
Death-Cum-Retfri."ment Beae:its} Ruko;, 1964 - For sub-rule {I) of ruie 2 of the
Madhya Pradesh District :rnd Sessions Judges (Death-Cum-Reti;ement Benefits)
Rules, 1964 as substituted by section 4 of the said Act, i he following sub-rule"
shall be substituted, namely :---
(I) Subj?ct to the provisions of sub-rule ( 1-A), the All India Services
Dea~h-cum-Retirement Benefits) Ru!es, 1958, as amended from time to time
hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) shall apply m:.i.taiis mutandis to-
(a) all permanent District arrd Sessions Judges drawn from amongst the
officers of the Judicial Service of the former Siate of Madhya Pradesh in the
same manner as they have hitherto applied to them with effect from the 29th
October, 1951 by virtue of rule 7 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services
Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Services} Rules, 1955;
(b) all permanent, District and Sessions Judges in the State who are
drawn from amongst the officers of the Judicial Services of the former State;; of
Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal, with effect from the 1st Apri1,
1958 subject to the exercise of option as provided in rule 3 ;
(c) all other permanent District and Sessions Judges in the State not
falling within clauses (a} and (b} above.
{1-A). With regard to the age of compulsory retirement the permanent,
District and Sessions Judge shall be governed by the Madhya Pradesh (Anivarya
Seva Nivritti-Ayu) Niyam, 1967 as specified in the Schedule to the Madhya
Pradesh Shaskiya Sewak Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 and the provisions
or Fundamental Rule 56, as substituted by section 2 (If the said Act.
4. Amendments when to come into foree.-Amendrnents made by seciion
2 and 3 shal] come into force with effect from the 15th December~ 1967.
5. Repeat-The Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya St:vak (Adhivarshiki.Ayu)
Adhyadesh, 1967 {l 2 of 1967) is hereby repealed. 1
SCHEDULE
[ Sl~e seclions 2 and 3 1
Rules
J.. (l) These rules may be called the Madhya Pradesh (Anivarya Seva
Nivritti-Ayu) Niyarn, 1967.
(2) They shall come into force with effect fr.~m1 the !Srh December, 1967.
2. (1) The age of compulsory retirement cf Government servants other
than Class lV Government se-rv,!nts shall be 258 yettr-s.
(2J The age of compulsory retirement of Class 'JV · Government
servants shall be 60 years.
----···- ----- ,, ____ ,,_ ----- . ··-----···-------·---- .. --~-
I. Published in M.P. Rajpatra (Asadhnran) dated 23-12-1967 Page 3144.
2. Substituted by M.P. Act No. 9 of 1976.
, . ....,,•
I ,.
t·
1 ·I
J
R
y
s
t
f
Rr. 3] The M.P. (Anivarya Seva Nivritti-Ayu) Niyam, 1967 1135
3. Those Government Servants who have already attained the age of 053
years on the date mentioned in sub-rule ( 2) of ru!e 1 and are in service of the
said date shall, as from the said date, be entitled lo such leave as may be due
for a period not exceeding 120 days and shall stand retired on the date next
following 1he date of completion of such kave;
Provided that the duration of such leave shalJ, in no c:ise, extend beyond
the date of attaiDment of the age of 58 years.
COMMENTS
Synopsis
(I) Order of compu13ory retirement
on payment of three month's
salary, not bad.
(2) Correction of entry about age.
(3) Court's declaratory decree is not
monetary decree.
(4) Raising age of Superannuation.
(5) Compulsory retirement.
(l) Order of compulsory retirement on payment of three month's salary,
oot bad.-It is argued that there was a man who took his reversion with ill
grace, did not join on his substantive post for long seven years, went to the High
Court four years after the passing of the said reversion order, deprived the
State of his services in whatever capacity, and thereby exhibited lack of devo
tion to duty, used intemperate and offensive language towards the superior
officer for which he was charge-sheeted and actually removed from service on
that count. If the Government took all 1hese factors into consideration in taking
a decision as to whether it would be in public interest to retain him after the age
of 55 years, could that decision be called mala fid<' at al! ? And after all, the
petitioner was only promoted temporarily as Assistant Engineer. He had no
vested right to continue c.n the post and he was a!so not selected by Public
Service Commission.
The High Court nf Madhya Pradesh agreeing with the above argument of
G~vernmcnt advocate held that the decision of the Government in compulsorily
retiring the petitioner at t'1r. age of 55 years, could not be attack on the ground
of 'ma/a fide'.
It was further argued by the petitioner that the order of retirement
unde1 the Rule could be effective ooly if the State Government simultaneously
offered payment to him of his three month's s.'1.Luy. Unless she payment of an
e:i:uct amount accompanied the service of notice, the ,..der of compulsorily retire
ment would be bad.
In the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dinanath Rai, decided on I 1th
October, 1968; 1969 Service Law Reporter 647 (SC) the relevant portion of the
Rule for interpretation reads thus:
" .......... Provided that in the case of notice of the appointing authority
t~e latter may substitute for the whole or part of this period of notice pay in
11eu t.hereof provided further that it shall be open to the appointing authority
to relieve a Government servant without any notice or accept notice for a
short period, without requiring the Government servant to pay any penalty
in lieu of notice."
Their Lordships construed the rule differently and observed:
-
1136 Madhya Prach"sh Services Manual f ltr. 3
"The rule cloes not s::iy !lint l 11c p:ty should be "hen in cash or by · Ir
cheq1;1c at the time _tl~e notice is is~ucd. . K_nowi i_1g the :-ay t lie Government :,·r~
run, 1t_would b(i difficult to ascribe this mtcnt10n to the nde 1m1.ldng au1hcrrtv.
~here ts 111_1 doubt}~at the Go~:exnmcnt ?::rv,mt 1'.ould be enti!led to the p,l)' In
lteu of notice hut inB would be in th,~ ,nJmary course."
In t.lle r1.e~ent case t_l,1e l~ng1iagc of the rule is akin to the Jan_gu;:ige used in
the Rule 1n D11wnnth Rm s ( ase. 1969 Ser. L.R. 647 (SC) and we would pn::i;:r
to construe the rnlc in the n\~nnc~ it was done in Dimmath"s case. The pi,yin-.;nt
cont~rnp!aled hy the Rule is nc:thcr payment t,i be made forthwith. simuHa!1e
ously with tbc notice, nor wou\d the notice be effective oniy upon pa)'mi:n! h1:.ing
made, PaymGnt could follow in the ordinary coursi~.
Even otherwise there was substantial complian;;e of the rule. The off.er of
R~. 1770/- toward8 1hrec month's ~a!ary, was made, presumbly, on _the same
day not ice of compulsory retir1;me11t wa~ served or soon ihereafler. The petition
does not disclose the J ate of service of notic.:. The grievance of the petitioner
is that the salary offered was cn!cu!ated on the basis, as if the petitioner was
stopped at the Efficiency Bar. According to him, the question of crossing the
Competent authority had to consider the question prior to or on the date rhe
petitioner became entitled to it and that date was l.3.1~69. If he was not
considered on that date for any reason whatsoever, it wo1.1ld he presumed, he
says, that the compc;tent m1!hority had no objection to his crossing the efficjcncy
bar. .
The High Court held that the petitioner cannot cl~1im the sanction to
cross the Efficiency Bar simply because he had retired. The sanction could be
given or withheld or even nfier his retirement. If it was given, he could claim
benefits eve!l though rctir!d. ff it wns withheld, he did not lose anything,
because be lrnd nlready stopped at that stage. It was, therefore held that n1)
punishment inCTicted. U.K. Norayanan Vs. State of Madhya PradN;h and otluJs.
1975 M .P. L.J. 404 : 1975 J. LJ. 760.
(2) CuHcction of entry nbout age.• --The facts ()f the case am that in Lhe
year 1957 when for the first time after the reorganisation of States, the petitioner
was call!ld u r,on by the Sel tlerncnt Officer ro disc?ose hi!; date of birth. The
year 1917 mcmiom:d in tlt~ Sirvic-e Book did not seem proper record as the
date and the month of the p<:titioner's hirth were no, mentiooed and the Service
Book inrlicit tc d nothing to show that the c ntry was verified with reference to
any confirmatory dOGumentary evidence like !he nmtriculation certificate or the
Municipal Bir! h certiflcat-:. The p.eti lion er µrnduoed tb~ matriculation cert i!icatc
and entered the dc1te of birth ns 8th April, ! 915, not with an idea of creating
conflict, nor there is reason to believe I hat the entry w11s made on the insistence
of Shri RL. Guptf.!. Presumnbly he made the entry having fe:tSC'll tc, bdicve
that the sam~ shall be acted upon. Whaiev;.:r be the real intention in the mind
of the petitioner, any reasonilble m:m wM1ld accept the declnrntion to be true
and scton net on it.
A duty wn~ cast upon the petitioner to di~clos1? his date of birth along
with confirmatory evidence. He chose t1l prod L:Cc the matriculation certificate.
He entered tl:e date as sl1ov,m !herein without protest. He was therefore dcbrred
from producing (he horoscope instead and asserting that the real date of birth
was 13th Shulda Samvnl, 1974 equivalent to 20th August, 1917. He could haye
agitll te.d the is,ue then and !!et the dccisi,)n on the question of his date of binh.
He has come to the High Cm1rt thirteen years afier when the G0vernmcnt }ms
chosen to act ,,.,n his own admission , they gave him extension of service for n
year und retired _him with effect from_ 22nd April, 1971.
•
' I
-·
Rr. 3] The M.P. (A nivarya Seva Nivritti•Ayu) Niyam, 1967 1D7
ll was held tl1at the petitioner was guiitv of acquiesccncc He accepted
the tlate of birth as 8th April, 1915. The case also attracts the doctrine of
estoppel by negligence. The petitioner al!owed the two entries to continue and
thereby led the Government to choose the ent1·y which prima _li.1ch appeared
genuine and had the support of confirnr,tory evid~ncc. The petitioner cannot
now turn round and say that he has been prejudiced. He should h::ivc taken
steps to get one of the entrks prejudicial to him scored out. He had permitted
them to continue and the Government could legitimately act on the entry which
was supported by the petiti\)ncr's matriculation certificate. It w,,s customs.ry
with the Government to rely on the matriculation certificate mo~tly, for purpo~0
of date of birth. The petitioner's negligence lay in permitting the two entries to
continue, and the latter entry in particular to be construed as his own admissi0n
in the matter of date of birth.
Further it was held tbat the petitioner wets guilty of supression and mis
statement of facts inasmt1ch as he did not disclose initially that he had himself
entered in Part Il of his Service Book the 8th April, 1915, to be his date of
birth. He also did not speak about the declaration he had submitted in February,
1960. If he w,15 force to make the entry as he later contended, that would be
a disputed question of facts on which the High Court would not go in evidence.
In so far as the admission in the declaration of February, 1960 is concerned,
there is no such plea of undue influence or coercion -or misapprehension. Prima
facie, however, the two documents were held to be voluntarily executed. MoJ.:rc1"
dhwraj SinRh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 1974 M.P.L.J. 31.
(3) Court's declaratory decree is not monetary decree.-In Civil Appeal No.
670 of 1965 .1,N. Saxena Vs, State of !vf.P., decided on the .:!Ctl~ Januciry, 1967,
the SupremC Court held that retirement of a Government servarit after he attains
the age of 55 years, on three month's notice on the basis of the General
Administrai-ion Department Memorandum No. 433-258-I (iii) 763 dated the
28th February, 1963 is invalid in since the said memorandum \'las merely an execu
tive directiop_,and not a rule governing the conditions of service of Government
servants, The decision affected a large number of retirements ordered on the
basis of the aforcs::iid memorandum and involved considerable financial burden
on the State Exchequer by way of payment of arrears. There were likely to he
other complications regarding continuance in service etc.
Therefore after the decision of th:it 1ppeal the Governor had promulgated
an _Ordinance which was replaced on April 20. 1963 hy the M.P. Shaskiya Sevak
A.mvarya Sevcmiviriti ka Vidhimanyatakar,m Vidyayak Takaram Vidyeyak Adhi
rnyam, 1967 (5 of 1967) validating the retirement of certain Government servants.
including that of appellant, despite the jugment of Supreme Court.
By virtue of this Act, the State i, vested with a right not to pay the due~
of appellant from the date of his retirement (December 3, 1963) onwards. ln
effect this Act has made previsions of Compulsorily Retirement Rules. 1965
applicab!e from tfarch J, 1963.
The nppellant again moved the High Court ch~!lenging the validily of the
Act which was dismissed so an appe,tl was filed to the Supreme Court.
It is argued on behalf of the appellant; (i) that a right of property being
a judgment-debt, protected by Article 19 (1) (f) of the ConstitutioJJ, had been
ci:eated by the Supreme Court'~ Decree dated 30th January, 1%7 in favour of the
appellant ctnd 2.gctinst the Staie. Since the impugned Act to effect, seeks to
expropriate the appellant of that right without providing for any compensation
it is ultra vires Article 31 (:) vfthe Constitution;
lBS Madhya Prtt<lesl1 Servit:es M,1nn;\\ [ Rr :"I
(ii) That the impugned Act is ultra vi1es the Constiu1tion inasmuch a~ it
seeks to valid:ltc the retirement of the appclhrnt ,rnd olher like him by chang
ing their servic:i conditions with rdrmpective tficct. Iii '>0 so doing, the State
iegi~latuJ"e has oveMteppe[l the limits of \egislat:ve powers conferred on it hy
Article 309 of the Con<;ticnticn. Reliance was placed on the decision of the
Supreme Cot1rl in the State of .'vfvsort Vs. Pada111nl,hr1tharya etc. (1966)
;> SCR .'.!-94. .
. (iii) that the impt1gned Act, encroaches upon the; judicial ftcl<l i1wsmucl1
:tt 11 overrule, and make u:1cnforce:1hle the decision dated 30th January, 1967
in Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 670 of 1963, and in so doing, it off
ends Articles 141, [42 n.nd 144 of the Con.">itution ;
(iv) Even if the impugned Act is VJ.lid, clauses (b) and (c) of section
5 of the Act, on a propcrco □ struction, do not vacate 1he decree ofthe Supreme
~ourt, requiring tl1e respondent to Hie appelbnt the pcctininry benefits result
mg from the succscss of his earlier appeal (CAA. 670/65) in Supreme Court.
Clause (b) of section 5 merelv bars the maintenance or continuation of any
proceeding hr any amount aS payment, toward<: sa1J.ry. The appellant is not
seeking to m:1intain or conti11ue any execution proceeding in Court, for the
recovery of any amount tow'.'l.rill sctlary, the -de;cree being a declaratory one
None of the,e cont~ntions were hdd to be tenable.
_0!1, pernsal of the Supreme Court decree rderred to above would show
th.it 1'. is not a money decr1;e, raising a judgment-debt. It is n declantory decr_ee
dcc_b.nng that the ri;spondent's order dated Septemhc'r l l, 1963, compnlsonly
ret1rmg the appellant w.is. invalid, and consequently the appellant would be
deemed to have contiirned in scrvic•.! till he ::iltainGd the age of 5S years
The fu1ther declaration that he will be- entitled to such benefits. as may accrue
to ~i~ by virtue of thl:'. succcs'> of the writ petition was only incid~ntal_or
.incilhary to the m,iin relief and wilt fall or stand with the same. Thts being
the position lhe decree did not create an indc-feJ.sible right of property in
favour ofthe appelLint.
Th~ distinction between a 'legislative and a 'judici,d act is well known,
though Ill s0m~ specific instance the line which separ,ites one category from
the other may not he ca;i!y discernible. Adjudication of the parties according
to la"': cnac-tc<l hy the legislature is a judicial function. In the performance
of this [l!nctio~ the court interprets an<l ~ives effect lo the intent and r:1-a~
d:i.te or the leg;-;LJ.tnre as embodied in the statute. On the other hand, 1t 1s
fo.r tlic !czisbture to fay down the hw prescribing norms of conduct which
will govern parties and transactions and to rcouire c111d to give effect to that
lnw. '
. It was th,:::-eforc, held that in enacting the impngned provisions, the leg-
1s!ature lrns not nceirled the limits of its legislative powers nor encroached
on the judici:it field. J. N. Sr;fnena Vs. The· Swtc o( Madhrn Pradesh. 1976
U.J.{SC)223. - -
foPiore Dusr,da mu/ othcrs Vs. Th,° King T:mf!l'ror !944 F.C.R. 6!, t_hc
Gov:::nwr General by Ordinance repealed the Special Criminal Cottrts Ordin
ance !I of l942. There was a provision in the repealing ordinance fo~ con
firm:'l_t1on :rnd continuance of sentences of Specinl court& and retnal of
pendrng c;-1ses. ThG appcl!ant thci-ein had bcc11 convicted and sentenced by
Spt":cl::d Crimir:a! Court which was held have to jurisdiction to try the case by
an order or a court Section 3 (I) of the Speci:il Crimin~! Courts (Repec1l) Or-
.,
Rr. J l The M.P. (Anivarya Scva l''.ivritt1-Ayu) Niyam, 196/ 1139
<linance, I 943 conferred valldi(y and f"ul! effectiveness ou sentences passed by
Special Criminal Courts by conferring jurisdiction on them witl~ retrosr::ective
..,:!feet. The Federal CourL ti.!!,\ llnl by promu!g;:itm.; anJ repealing Ordinance
or 1943, the l~gislative authority lm<l not adcmpted to do i~directly what it
could not do directly or to t'Xercise judicial power rn the gmsc of legislation
It wa:, funli<.=I, held that tl1e Ordinance wa~ not invalid on the ground that tilt.:
Jc;l'isblive auti10rity had validated by respective legislation prcceedings bekl
i1tco•.:rts whicl1 were hlid for want of jurisdiction as there was nothing in the
Indian Constitution which precluded legisL1.tive from doing so.
(4) Raising the age of suj}eram.mr.!io:1.-Tn the case of Batafiari Jena V,~.
The Sta/i' of Orissa. A LR. 197! S.C. 1516, 1-elianc? was placed_ on C?rtaiu
ob5ervatious .in t;1e Js::cision ot lh ⇒ supreme Co:.lrt rn Gurdcv S1n&h Smdhu
Vs, State of Punjab. ([961) SCR 587 : A.1.R. 1964 S.C. 1585, There the
Supreme Court struck down Article 9.1 of lhe Pep~u ?ervice R~gulations under
which the Government sought to retain an absolute rtght to retue nny Govern
ment servant after he had completed te11 years qualif.ying scnice without giving
any reasoa. In that case the petitioner who hatl been appointed as an Assis
tant Superintendent of Police in the erstwhile Patiala State on February 4,
1942 and confirmed in that rank on the regular vacancy after undergoing
practb,I district Lraining courses, and ::.ifter promotion to Lhe rank of Superin~
tendent of Police in an ofiiciatiug capacity in February 1950 in the said State
of Peps.u, was asked to show cause by nolice dated 25th March 1963 as
to why he should not be compulsorily retireJ, The p:."!titioncr complaiile<l
that the notic~ issued to him was invuliJ on the: ground that the article ell
which it was based was ilself ultra vire~ and inop~rativc and only question
before thtJ Coun was whether the imp,1gned ,:irticlc wa3 shown lo be constitu
tioually iim1lid. Reforring to Satish Chanel-·,, ,\11and Vs, Tire Union of India
1953 SCR 585 :A.LR. 19'53 SC 250, :rnd ,o cel'lain diCi.a of fhe majorily
Judges in Afofi Rom Dfka Vs. General Manager, North East F1011tier Rciilwa1'
A.l.R. 1964 S.C. 60t) : {l 964) 5 SCR 683, the Supreme Court observed by wiiy
of c1>.plana1.ion that:",,,, ..... ,U1e majority ju,lgment took the prcc..tution
of adding a note of caution ~Int ifa ru1e of compulsory rctiremrnt purported
to give authority to the Government to tc1 n1;nate the services of a permanent
public servant at a very early stage of his cr.reer the question about the vali
dity of such a rule may have to be ,;xamin.::d. That is how in accepting
\the view that a rule of compu1s0ry retirement Cdn be treated as valid and as
constituting ar- ..:xception to the Genci·al rnle that the terminaf0,1 oftbe ser
"viccs of a permanr. ~1 11blic sorvant wot!ld amount to his remo,al u· ,. '.\! I
(2), the Supreme Cuurt added & r:dcr and made it perfectly clrar tl,at if the
minimum periotl of se1ncc which was pre5cribed by the relevan, rules u1J1,eld
by the earlier decisions was 25 years, it could not be reaso11ably reduced in
that behalf. In other words, the majority judgment indicates that what indi
cates what influenced the decision wa~ the fact that a fairiy large number cf
years ::1ad been prescribed by the rule of compulsory rehement as constituting
the minimum p~riod of service after which ~done the said )uk could be invoked.
The Cvurt further observed foal that the safoguards which Article 31 I
(2) affords to permanent public servaa:~ is no more than this that in case it
is intended to <lismis>, remove or reduce them in rank a reasonable opportunity
should be given to them of showing; against the action proposed to be taken
in 1egard to lhem. A claim for sccuriLy lo tenure does not mean security to
tenure for dish,. ,1est, corrupt, or inefficient public servants. The ~J:iim merely
1nsi~ts lhat bdore thc:y arc rcmovcJ, lhe pamanent public serv:ints should be
given an opportunity lo meet tl1c cl1ar2e on which they :ire 5ought to be re-
1140 r\lladhya Pradesh Service Manual
moved. Then::forc, it seems that ouly \\',O cxceptiom can be treated :., \.JliJ
in dealing with tlti: scope and effect of the prutect1,,,1 afforded by Arti le 311
("!), if J r~rmarient public servant i~ asked to retire on the ~,ro1rnd Ui;,t i,~ 'US
reached nc age of superannuation which has been rcas01iably fi;;:ed, . \r1ick
311 (\J d,,~,, not apply, be-.;,rnse such reiiremeDt is neither dismiss~Li nor r nwval
of the p:1b!ic \,:~tvdnt5. :fa pcnnancut public ser\'ant is cc,mpulsorily ,etirc,l
u,d~r P1,: rub, whi,:h pres::ribe the normal age of superannuation aud rr0Y:cte
f()r a re;i.,.Jnably big pc:riod of qu dified ~crvice alh:r which «!.:JllC cu1Jl c1! 0,ory
retirement catl b,~ urJcrcd, that again may n~it amonnl tu dismiss,:! rn ;-i,l'J\~d
unJer Anick 3! i (2) nuinly be-::ms-:: that J'j the: effc,_'.t ,,f :t long s,~rie'., ,:,f Jc:
.;i~ions of StJpreme Court But where while reserving the power t,) ths: St ate
to compuls,Jri!y retire :;i p:c"rmanent public snvant, a rule is framed rre s::rihin:;
a prop.:;r age Llf c.up,~r,1nnuation, and ano~her rnk is added givin:; the rower
to the Sule Lo compaL~nily retire a pliblic servant ::t Lhe c~1d or 10 y·:;irs ol'
his servk~~-- tk1t cinrtot, be treated as falling outcide Article: Jll (_"1 ). The
lcrminati,:,n of th•~ :-ervicc of a permanent public servant under such a rule
though c,:lmpulsory rdiremcnt, is. in sub.,tancc removal under /\rticle.~ll (:'f.
Tl,c :1b,)Yc obscrvatil111~ r~licJ on the counsel clo not hel:1 the ar pc:lla nt
The abo\'c ob,erv:itrous sbnw that a rule which permits a Go,ernmr.m to ask
:,n c,;Ti;:;cr Ln H:ii1c after an uareascm:tbly short period of service must befor,:
th·c: 1Fm1Ml a:,::-c of sup·::rn111u:ion Wollld be hit by Article 3 ! I. Th(y ,;Jnn1)l
.1pply wi1e11 the pcrin<l ,Jf qn,d,fying ~~"'· tee mcntiuned in the nt!e ; , 1 0, un
rc"m,ouably ,.hot an-i the normal age of supcrnnu~tion iiKed is not ;111 ~ccouu,
tably e:111/. a~fore !\fay 1%3 a Government servant in Go, ernme,tt serv::nt
in Oriss:, h,1d tc· fftir~ on att:•ininc: •he ~12.c of 55 Y~'I,s \,·hctk:r lt<:" lu.J corn,
pletecl 30 vcars' q1ulifying s,~rvicc ~r not.·. The fact tlut the :ige ol su1,c:rnnnu
;,ti,Jn 'N,h rc,,<c:d from 55 or 58 while Goverum:nt resef\t"d to itself :1. right to
;,.:;k ;1ny employee to rdirc at lhc ag;; of 55 ,foe, n ... :: ,iolatc ,·"ticlc .11 I C1)
Sc::::,Jnd!y t 11,: orJer did 1w 1_ cast any a ,p;;t·,i,Jn, ,:, r :,tigi:n on t lle : : ,pr:lb nt
w11ich y,,.,nld ,1ttract Artid' 311, A GoYcrnmcllf. h.J', a fr1h! !c, rc,1::ire t!t,:
Governnent ~,;r•,:ant t,J reLire at the -:H::,~ c{ ·'15 \,:ithout Js;igni11i, ~,nv rca-;on.
Tite fact thtl bv the nnjfi~:1ttou of 5t11~Febr~urv. t%l ccrt:i11 }~Jidc1i:1l",; were
indicate,l t,J t~l~ lf•~J.J5 c'.r Depa..r,rnents ill considcrin; whe1hc:~ 2 G,1; rnfrnc111 l .J .
·;erv,1nt slwulu cont; nue 1ll service bqr,)nd the case of _.-;-, ye Ms. CHL o t 1c 1
'actors for considerJtion being hck of integ:·ity, diJ 1wt nnp!y lhat a 11y umcer
v..-ho~e Ct}ntinnance in service was no1 ,HJvL:.-,J bd:eJ in lnter:ril I'. Baraharc Jena
Vs. T!zc Ori,sa. A. LR. S. C. 1516.
4
•
lt is \\'CIJ kno\vn that a Lrn·· or sl..;..illory rnk ~hould be ,o inlet ,1rctcd a,
to make it valid :rnd not valid. :f this c.:;· n.:s~ion 1s con fined t,, ,: !tat w,1s
argued htforc the High Court namely tint it ,::ivc, pcnver to the Guvernmcn_t
to allo•,•: a Government servant to rem;1in i11 service even bs::yond the age of 5)
years for StJecial reasons the rule will not be rendered ]11Valid and i!, validity
.. vii! no; be put in jeop:1rdy. So construed it is: apparent lhJt the appeHant
cot11J not have he,::n retirt.:d c,Jmpu!sory 1mder the S3.urashtrn P.ult'S be~ore
he had attained age of 55 ye:ns. By applyin::i: the Bomba.y rule his condi1ions
of service ,\·ere \'aricd to his disadvaat3ge b'c'causc Le could then be compul-
,ori!y retirt:d ;i~ i,oon as he attai □ ed the age<:,f50 year,;. Takhcrmri •,-
.\lunkud T\. St,1tc o( G11Jum1. AT .R 1770 S,C. 143.
(5) Compulsory retiremcnt.--In ,UMi Ram Dt,,Za r·s. (h11s·rul M.//lugerN.
l,F. R,;iim,_t· ,lf,1figao11 Pcndu. l'Vi,.\ (5) S.C.R.. !9td LC'.R. r,g_:; · .\i.R. 1964
S.C. li(t;i rmc uf th-: nrntte:-s which cam,; np for cunsiderati,in W,l"- ,he tlfen
01· ;t ';,:-1·\·ic,~ rule which permitted cumpubnry rrtircmc1lt \' ithc,ut 11 .:ing th,-::
Rr. J-4 j The M.P. (!\nivarya Seva Nivritti-Ayu) Niy,,rn, !96'7 1141
minimum period of service after which the f!,-Jle could be invoked. According
to the observations of Venkataram Ayyar J. rn_ State of Bombay Vs .. Saz:bhag
c!umd ,',[.Joshi. [958 S.C.R. 571; A.I:R .. 19)7L.C. 89-'-', the :eppl)cal10n of
such a rule would be tantamount io _drsm1,sal r~n_wval _:rncter Article 31 (2J
of the Constitution. There were certam other dxmons or ihe Supreme Court
which \'icrc re\ev<1ot on this point viz. P. B:tl.ikotaiah Vs. i Hion of India. 1958
SC R. 1052: A I.R. 1953 S.C. 232 and Dalip Si11gh Vs. State of Punjab. 1961-
l · s:c.R. 8&: A.I. R. 1960 S.C. l 305. All these decisions \Vere considered in
Motiram Deka Vs. Ge1nral Manager N.E F, Rai/1rays, A.I. R. 1964 S.C. 600 and 1
the true legal position was stated in the majority judgnx:~1t at pa,~e 726 of
of S.C.R. and at page 617 of A.I.R. thus : ·' ..... "\Ve tlunk that 1t any rule
permits th,:; 11ppropriate authority to retire compulsorily a civil servant without
imposing a limit~tlon in th;-1.t b~l1alf L~at such civil ~erv,,,:1t should have put in
a minimum pcno<l of service, tnat nne would be mval1d and the so-called
retirement ordered under the soid Ruk would amounl to removal of the civil
scrnmt within the meaning of Article 311 (2)" .
.ln Gurdci• Singh Sidhu Vs. Slate of P1.mjab. 1%4 7 S.C.l\.. 507 : A.LR. 1964
.S.C. J 585, it was pointed out that the on!y two exceptions to the protection
afforded by Article 31 l (2) were, (I) \\·here a permanent public servant was
ask~d to retire on the ground th~t he had reached the age of superannuation
whic!:i was reasonably 1ixeJ ; (2) that he was compulsonly retired under the
rule which prescribed the normal age of superaanation ;:mi proYided a reasona
bly long period of qualified service after which alone compulsory retirement
could be valid. The basis on which this view has procu:ded is ihat for efficient
.i.<lmiaistratio.u it is nece~sary that public servants should enjoy a sense of secu
rity of tenure and that the termination of service of a public servant under
a rule which doc, not by down a reasonably long period of qualified serv:ce is
in substance remov.i. under Article 311 (2), The prillciplc is that the rule
relating to compulsory retirement of Government servant must not only , ontain
tE-,e outside limit of superannuation but there must also be a provision for a
reasonably long period of qualified service which must be indicated with suffi
cient clarity. To give an exnmple, if 55 years have been specified as the age of
superannuation and if it is sought to retire lhc servant even before that period
it should be provided in the rufo that he could be retired after he has attained
the age of 50 years or he has pllt in service for a period of 25 years
It is well setUcd lhat a law or a statutory rule should be so interpreted
as 10 make it valid not invalid. It this exprf:ssion is confined. to what was argued
· •~· · - before the High Court, namely thal it ;; ·ves power to government to allow a
Governmwt sen.ant to remain in service ·. ~-- !Jeyond the age of 55 years
for special reasons the rule wilt nol be umdercd invalid and its validity will not
be put in jeopardy. So construed it is apparent thal the appellant could not have
been retired compulsorily under !he Saurashtra Rules before he had attained the
age of 55 years. By applying the Bombay rule his condition or service were
varied to his disadvantage because he could then be compulsorily retired as soon
a~ he attained the of 50 years <\.s the pr,,,;vious approval of the Central Gover
ment wa~ not obtai1:ed. in accordance v.·ith the proviso to Scr:tion 115 (7) of
the States Re-organ1satron Act, 1956, the Bombay Rule could not be made
applicable to the appellant, Ta"11ctrary Shhduttary Mankad Vs. Stale of Gujarar
A.i.R. 1970 S.C. 143 : 1969 Ser. 572: (1970) l S.C.A. 138: It Guj. L.R. 325:
( l 970) l S.C.R. 244.
4. A Govc_rnmem ~avant _rn;1y. \:,,~ gncn e~. tcnsion of sci vice beyond tht:
age 5~ years subject tolrn physical J1tnr;s and mmLrnding qtrnlitv of his work
but not or<lin:t,·ily beyond the age of60 years. - -
' ' i
'~'"'i:':i':~~i;;t~~n:~;t:·-w.~51:~rl1?~[::_:..::;~.~a•,·
... --·-~·-=··=·--· ===---
1142 .tvI a<l hya Fr, cl esh Sen ices /vb 1111.-i l
14-A. Notwithstanding con!c:ind i:1 rule 4, ,, G,:1v,;rr,rn;;n.t S,~n,,:.ili
\vho had been a freedJm figh1e1 nn prn,factitn or a cc,·ti1lc:1L: i2- the form
below anJ subjc:ct to his oth:::r.vise 11! l,J b] cc111tinued irJ oCt'\'ic:;. be: gl\',:n
extension of ~ervice lx,yonJ 1!1e age 55 yc:r,; for such r;Jl C"{;:c,~di11g
the period for which such g,.w,,:rnrnent s~na.1g 1·,:ts rr1 ,::tp:J dcw,·:ti,Jn aml
iJnprisonn1ent inc?uding the p1::,~icd uodcrg:o:1e a~ un(L:-r L-J{d ~)_1 C:f!nn~ctiiJn 'c_ll
the freedom movement, subjec, to nn:(inJ1.!m l1 f Three years
Explanation.--For the \Y,:Tosco or 1:1i, ju!e ''il frccun,,1 1;ie:,11 a
Government servant who was dcLain:::d a11cl,'or imp:'i,,11Kc: con :1ccou n ,:-,( liis
political activities in connecti,lll ,vilh lreed,rn1 illU\'C,: c1H dm1:1g tl1,; p:rivd
from 1919 to 1946,]
5. The Madhya Pr;tde,li (Agl'. of C\,mpulsury Reti,1:t1°cnt) Ruk ::.. 1)66
are hereby repeal c- J ,
"[FORM OF CERTiFfCATE
CERTIFIED that Sim .... , .. , .S.'n.. . . , . , ....
Rio.. . . wci s imprisoned :ud nr dct:,i ,v:d :n cc :n-:ct1011 ·,yith
the freedom mo\'ement ::ii the- :,L1.ce, fnr rlw pc: i,,d ,nd. 'Jirl,-r the pro,isi,Hlc
of th": law mentioned !x[,w
Place
Datu! the
Seal
Pr01 isio u d lH , U!1der 1, lt'ch
1iYi l:-r:s.-, nc._i nr c:(•t~~.7n ~ · l,
~---------------111111111-•1
--~~-~ 3Mfl"@sfcfi
~ ~ 1'R 'T@R ( f;;r-n -:sTcfi"
·~)~ffl%TI~- ~
~- 2-22-0·dh-1•1~ ~/38 fu. it
f'!.~. ~ 30-5-2001."
-~10 .. ~]
dC!,_ 114-·009,200.1'20· 01- 03.··
~' ~v..rcm:, ~ 16 ~ 2003~-tj'JT:f 26, 'llfcfi 1929
-=--=--=-====================================-=::=·-·:::_-__ -___ =:::--=::.·.
fcrr~ 3ffi fcl~ ~ fcf'qlT[
t-bt1<1 "-l; ~ cfif"-11 o I ~ 'qcR, ~
. 'W-f"T-, ~ 16 ~ 2008
~ ss7rit. 12121-31'~.m. 11.1os.-~r1h-JJ1~ fcP·--TR ~'ITT ~1_f11--ifof@a d .. ~ f;rB T.R ~ os-01-2oos
ciJ {l'-'~41<.1 cnl ~ "9IB °ITT ~- t ~-w.h-JT~ cfil '3\Hcfii{l ~~~ml -;;f@1 %_
20 (43)
·G
'-
,..9'ctl-EPI~ ~~~~if cf9-ll ?.il~.~tlj}-lR,
~~~. ~-~-
-
I, ,·;
20 ( 44)
,
0'11-EPI~ ~~
(~02~2008)
m:rlw14 q11t1cfi1~ ~( ~3ITT!)~, 1967 (~ 29~ 1967)
cFilatTt~-m~~- .
m:-
1.
"0~ am~ 2.
~29"W{_1967~.
mn 2 tm"T· <lm
-gf~ l{_('f'll<'f
~56cnlffl~.
( 1) ~ 3lf¥:.rr,,w=rc:fil zjf°'&m ';fltl m·i1f!•I~ :t1F8chlll ~ ( 3ffe.~ ~) c-mn~-R)
. .. 3lf~, 2007 .'f
(2) ~ 1 ., 2007"fl~"s;3TI~~ .. -~
~.hilfl•I~ ltllflchlll ~ ( 3lf~ ~) 3lf~, 1967 (~ 29 ~ 1967) ("fl~
~~~ an~~~ii~t') 'cf,1 mu-2 .:i, ~~:f.l<rq~f.r'.l,:f 56 .:i,-
(~) 3qf1lll-1 ( 1) .:i, ~ "~llflchlll fir~ 3lR~~ cflt~ ~llflchlll ~"f!f~~
/
,,,,,,
~llflchlll ~·~~"CR, ~ "~llflchlll fir~,~~ cflt. ~ lt1F8chlll ~.
~.hfl fl1 I~ ~ ~-~ fflR ~ ( (1"1 qf~ct) Wfl cfiT • -q:m ~ "fl
wd1H•1~ -~ ~ ~- fflR ~ (<1'-'lqf.,1ct) Wfl ~f.r'.li:f, 1988 'cf,1
~-~ 1l of&Jf©ct fclim f+.tfcfiffil cfG "CR~ ~311 m,' @'ffiflll~ fficfi
~ ( ~q fttfcfiffil ~ 'ct?.fl ~?ft) ( (l;jjqf~ct) Wfl cfiT ~ -q:m ~
-m @nlf!•I~ ~-~ ( ~ fttfcfiffil ~ 'ct9-TT ~?.TT) ( (l;jjqf~ct) Wfl
~ f.r'.li:f 1987 'cf,1 ~-~ 1l df&Jf©ct fclim fttf':fffil Ye:: "CR~ "s;3TI "ITT
'ct?.fl @nlfPI~ fttfcfif.81 fira:TT ( (l;jjqf~ct) Wfl cfiT ~ -q:m ~-m 0nlflll~
• f+.1fcfi,fll fira:TT ( (l;jjqf~ct) Wfl ~ f.r'.li:f, 1987 'cf,1 ~-~if af&Jf©ct fcnm
r-r.1F.cfi681 rn~ ~ cfG "CR~ s::m m, "fl f~ ~ ~ll{icf,1,-1 ~· ~ m
-~;
(~) aqf1ll1-1 (1-Cfi) ~ .(J.l~li:fi<o1 {~"v-TT fttfcfiff!r• 3lR~ ( ~) ~-a9.n
~ ··fttfcfi,f!I' cfiT ~ fcfim ~ ;
. .
(<lR) -~ ( 1-Cfi) ~ .(J.l~lcfi(OI .:i, ~ "~/l-i~lfq;jlc:1'~11/ctcfi1lcf>l/f¼fcfi681' ~
~"CR~ "~<:.1/J.1~1fct;jli:"1lf11/ctcfi1lcf>l'• ~ fcfim ~- ;
("qi"{) aqf.p.ji:j ( 1-'&) ~ ~ f1t.-Jfaf©ct am:~ fcFit ~. 2,1zjq__ :-
"( 1-Tf) 3qf1lll-1 (2) ~~m~ 3'.fVi~~~ m-ih-111~ fficfi~Zl -~
-mcm:~ (~) ~ ~~, 1988 'cf,1 ~-~~ afct1forn
~ f tt f cfi ,fl I cfG "CR ~ i9 n 1 fl I I~ fficfi ~-- -~ i:m:cm: 'cf,"Fl'fTll
( U'1! qF~a) Wfl cfiT ~ ~ 'ct?.fl gn 1 +!1 Ii:¥ fficfi ~Zl ( ~
f+.tfcfiffil~'ct?.fl~ 9.fi) (~) ~ ~f.P-rq, 1987 chl ~
~ .:i oftttfolct fclim fttfcfi,fll ~ ~ f.f:im ~s,fflw1~ fficfi' ~ ~
fflR~ ({l;jjqf~ct) Wflcfil~~. '3'B i:im ~' ~ %
~ qtf 'cf,1 ~ 'Sfra ~ ~ affirq K', ~ ~ .:i flc11f1~t1 it
~;
I
f
'"'•.
\
I +,
~----.-----------------
~ 0ffifi'I~ ~~~-qftq'R~ ({l;,iqf?id) ~
'1-lfil f.fw:r, 1988 Cfi1 ~-~-q· aftt1f@d f"fim ftjftfiffil ~1Rf.rpfi
0tllflll~ ~~~-qftcm~ (u;,iqf?id) ~cfiT ~~
O?-Tl gtjjl;-jlj,$ ctl"cfi~ ( ~~~o'?-TT~~) (~)
WTT '1-lfil f.fw:r, 1987 Cfi1 ~-~ if aftt1f@d fcfim ftjftfiffil ~ 1R
~~ ~- (~ filftfiffil ~o?-TT ~~) (<(;,iqf?ia)
wn cfT ~ ~ ~ ~l!l f<fim "J:fffl Cfil ~ oTfusf m, ~
"J:fffl i 3lliP1 K-l ~ ~ if ~ cfrf 'fi1 ~ ma qi"{ WI 1R wn-· ~R¥m~; .
{-Q~ch{Ul-~~it;~it;~ "~ffiB•i~ ~~ ~
-qftqR ~ ~ {l;;iqf?id) ~ ~ fcfim ~• o?-TT ··gfi1B•i~
I
~ ~ ( ~ ftjftfiffil ~ <ll!f! ~~-) ( {1;,iqf?id)
wn ifi f<fim ~· "B an~ t ~ ~11Bcf>14 ~ ~ ~
_f<fim -ift ~ "B ~ sif@T m, ~ ~. '1-lfil f.{,rqf ifi .
3T:!BT~ ftjftfiffil an~ <l'T ~~~if Cfil ~ % am~
~ P,tf<hffi1 an~ <l'T ~ m Bf"if<."la t -m ~
&JU <l'T ~?-TT fcf;m Sl~IIBf-lch 1lG "tf{ f.rqm fcf;ln 1l<lT m am
~ <lill "B ciil'.t ofm ~ ocfi ftjfchffil an~ <l'T ~-~
~ if cfi'l<t fcfiln m "ffi ~ ~ ~'i-.ffl ~ffiBII~ ffiCfi ~
~ -qftq'R ~ ( {j;jjqf?la) ~- 31\!lql 0-o"JBitG 'fficfi" ~
. ( ~- ftjfchffil ~ <f?-TT ~~) ( {l;,iqf?id) ~ if fcfim
.1lG "tf{ ~~ ~ m.
( 1-ef) ~ (2) ~ ~qi ~ 31Ul~ wa-- ~ 0-olB•t~ ftjfc½ifB( fflPdl
(~) ilcfT '1-lfil f.r<rq, 1987 Cfi1 ~-~if ,3f&1f@d ~ fi4fc:fiffil
ffl&fcfl ~ 1lG i:r: Rgm 0ffiwl~ ftjfc:fiffil fflPdl ( <1'"1qf?1d) WTI cfiT ~
cfi1{ ~. ('W=IPl ~ ftjfchffil an~, 31~ ftjfc:fiffilt'l4 ~
m a1~.n&fcfl o?-TT $ ~- ftjftfiffich cfil-~) ~ "J:fffl ~, f;mii
~ i:fB3 cfrf Cfi1 ~ "5IIB qi"{~' 3lliP1 K-1' ~ . ~ ~ ~qtf1c5l'd ~
~;
~ 0-01@~ ftjfc:fiffil ~ c u;;iqf?ia) wn cfiT cfi1{ -w:rPl
~ ftjf c:fiffil -iffi~, 31~ ftjfcf>ffilt'l4 cfiT m 31m&fcfl o?-TT
$ ~ ftjf c:fiffich, ~ "J:fffl ~' f;mii ~ ~ qq cf>1 ~ "5IIB qi"{ ~'
atfcf1:t K-1' ~ ~ if ~qlf11-a m ~am~~~~ f<fim.
"J:fffl ~ ~ ormsr mm~ "J:fffl ~ 3ffi'rq ~ iti ~if~ cfrf
'fi1 ~ "5IIB qi"{ WI 1R ~q1f1c51-a ~ ~; '"
~~am~ @ffiB•i~ ftjfc:fif{ll fu~ ( {1;,iqf:4a) WTI '1-lfil
f.,<p::f, 1987 Cfi1 .,_==-~-q afct1f@d fcRTI ftjfchffil fu&fcfl ~ 1lG 1:R "':!'1,_ ...,, ' 1
~ @ffiB•i~ ftjfchffil rna:TI (<1;,iqf::ld) WTicfiT-q:m~~' ('W=IPl
~ ftjfc:fiffil d'TT~, 3l'i:Zll1r-t ftjfchffilci4 ~ m 31m&fcfl o?-TT $
~ ff.ffc:fifBch <l)l ~) ~ ~l!l fcfim "J:fffl Cfi1 ~ oITT&
m, ~ "J:fffl ~ 3ffi'rq -~ ~ ~ if "tffio cfrf Cfi1 ~ ma qi"{ WI i:r:
~qlf1<¾'d m ~-
~~am -ift ~ 01 31i@, 2007 am~ an~~~
Cfi1 oTmsf ~ ~ Cfi1 qi@fqf~ ~ ~ ( ftjfc:fiffich 3fl!lq1 fi4f<hffii fu&fcfl
Cfil) ~ m i:r: ~ an~ cfiT ffi'q "5IIB ~ m.
20 (45)
·"'·.
20 ( 46)
f.m:A. 3.
·µt~&,(Ol~~~"Efi~"Efi~"~-◊"l1lfi 1 1iB~furm (~)
WTI.~ M ~· B 3TI'lffif f ~ . ~llficf>l<l ~ ,w; qf,
. fctm ~~"ii~~ m, ~ ~ %'m ~
filfctict-ll t.1~1Fc1~1c:1<1 it ~v.rr:r,, "Efi ~?~ ~ ~l<ff f.:P-mi ifi
~ cfi111t m -m ~ ~ criT -aT11 ~ i 3fu: ~ itBT
. PW:til'+!I rn8fcfi ~ fiFUiF@ · m. -m ~ ~ 7'.fT 3M~
fcfim S!WBf1cfi ~ in: RTn ~ Tf<l'T m ~ -;;fl cF,1=! "it cF,1=!
~ qtf cfcl1 ~~ ffl -q :~rr1nm m ~%~ml fi:.lf cfi,fi I ·
rnan wn "Efi fcp:fi ~ in: ~~ &ill m ...
m·ftJAil'f ~ilf1ti-i1<1 ~ (:,n~ 3Wj).(ffl~) ~~, 2007 (~ s ~2007)
Wrtrf.tumt~~i. .
~; ~ 16 ~ 2008
~ ss1rtt. 12121-at1111.m. tt.1os.---~~~~~~ 34B"Efi~ (3) "Efi~it ,.§tHfP,~ 1<11fF,fili.1
~ (m~ ~) (tttltvf.t) d'~, 2007 (~ 02 tr:t2oos) ~ ~ ~~i-w~"ir ~
~ ffif 'itfflf 't
~Hfiflil~ ~ ~ "Efi 'W1 B cf~ 611~1<11jfil{,
~fttt~, ~-~-
CI-I.HA TTISGA~t-1 ACT
~ (No. 02 of 2008)
THE CHHATTISGARH SHASKIY A SEV AK (ADHIV ARSHIK~-A YU)
(SANSHODHAN) ACT, 2007
An Act Further to amehd the Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu)
Adhhiiyam, 1967 (No. 29 of 1967) .
.,
Be it enacted by the Chhattisgarh Legislature in the Fifty-Eighth year of the Rcpuhlic
of ll1dia, as follows :-
Short ml~ aiid . i.
ComilieiiWhl-H l
Ameftiln\eiirnr Filh0 . . 2
'dafuenlitfituie 56 as · ·
substifo\.l!~ by sec-
~tion . 2 ·or · the
Ch'i-1aiHsjith Ael ·
No:19oi'i%7.
··:4,-
(I) th.is Act n1ay he called the Chnattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu)
:!§ili'lshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2007 .
. .,......,
(2) JL~hail be dceincd m have come into force on the I st day of April. 2007.
:~ iiSetltdn2bflhi! Chhlttfisgarii Sliaskiya Scviil<(Adhivarshiki0 Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967
(No. 29 of 1967) (herc 0 in°after teforrcd to as the Principal Act), in Rule 56 of the
Fti~Oil_tl'Cfltil Rules,=-: . II. ' .
.. (!) .. in ~~b-fuletl ), 'for ttte words "evety dovc'i"r1mcnt servant <1ther than a Govern-
. ,, ·_ .. ffiei)tTca~hetJimJ.!1qlas~ IY.GoVernitffiniSctva,it''; the words ··every Govern-
: :i! · :· · ,,..;.:., ,tft~fi't :servb.i\t:f'ithefLlhiin ti G<}~cffim~n(;J'cachci\ a Class IV Govcrni11cnt
, · .. SerJl!frt; ivery ffieh'1ber·clth~·ehhattisg;arh Public Health and Family Wdfar(;
/
~-
.•
. '
(Gazettq:l) S~rvk~ ;ippoinl~P to 11 rnedi~11l pqst rnentipn!;!~ in Sphl-!duk-l lo ih~
C:hhattisg11rh Pynlic K~ijJth mid fµrnily Welfare COa7-t!!H!~) Servkc Rprn1it
men1 Rules, 1988, every memher of the ChhaHisgarh Puhlic Health (Indian
Systems of Medicine .and HomeopaLhy) (G11zetted) Service appointcp to a
MC:dical post maintained in Schedule-I to the Chhattisgarh Puhlic Health
(Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy) Recruitment Rules, ·1987 and
every member of the Chhattisgarh Medical E<!ucMion (Gaz(!ft.cd) Service
· . appointed to a medical teacher post mentioned in.Schedule-I to the Chhattisgarh
Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987" shall he sub
stituted.
(ii) In explanation to suh-rules (1-a), the words "or medical" shall he omitted.
(iii) In explanation to sub-rules (I-a), for the words "School/Collcgiateffechnical/
Medical" the words "School/Collegcffecl~nical" shl!,11 be substit_uted.
(iv) After. sub-rule (1-b ),' the following shall he inserted, namely ;-
"(1-c) Subject fo the provisions of sub-rule (2 ), every member of the
Chhattisgarh Public Health and Family Welfare (Gazetted) Service
appointed to a medical post mentioned in Schedule-I to the
Chhattisgarh Public Health and Family Welfare (Gazetted) Service
Recrµitment Rules; 1988 and every member ot' the Chho:Jttisg~rh Puhl ii:
Health (Indian Systems of Medicine ,:Jrid Homeopathy) (Gazetted) ·
Service appointed to a. medical post mentioned in Schedule-I to
the Chhimisgarh Pu!llic J:iealth (Indian Systems of Medicin~ and
Homeopathy) ~ecruif,n~n.t Rules, 1987 sha.11 re~ire from s~rvici; on
th~ af~rl)OOIJ 1Jf th~ l~~f d_ay of ~hemonth in which he attains the age
of 62 ye!lrs ;
Provicjed tha( -~ member of ~h~ Chhnttisgarh Public Health
and FamilYWflfar~ (fi.~.~~) Service appointed to a m.fdjcal post
mentioned in Schedu)c-J .IQ l~ ~~_h;Jtti~garh Public_ ~~alth and
family Welfare (Gazeued) Service R.ecruitmept Jlules, 1988 and a
member of tbe Chhattisgarh Puplic tt,e:11tl) (IQ{;lj;io Sy::;te,in~ of
Medicine and Hom~op¥hY) (Gal£..~) Se.rvic.e ~ppoioted .to i!
medjcal post m.enµoned in S,clJ,edule-1 to .~h.e · CbbaU.isg.ar~
Public Health (Indian Systems of Medjcine and Homeopathy)
Recruitment Rules, 1987 whose date of birth is the· first of ;i. month
shall retire from service on .the afternoon of the last day of the
preceding month on attaining the age of six.ty two years.
Exp~natfon ;- For the purpose of this sub-rule "a member of the
Chhauisgarh Public }1ealth & •family Welfare (Qazetted)
S~rvic~" .and "Chhauisgarh Public Health (Indian Systems
of Medici.ne ~nd Homeopathy)(Gazetted) Service" means
a Government serv~nt . by wb?tever 4,es~gnation _called,
appointed as Medical Officer or S~ialist ;n accor4ance
wjtb t~ recrui,tmen_t rules ~9 ~hall also include _ l,uch
Medic.~t 0£fjc~r or Specj_~Ji$~ who j~ :W)J)!)_i.n_tCf) ~ :8
a~iniwativ.e po~ by prom~tion or otherwise aQd who hasExcerpt shown. Open the full act in Lexace.