LexThe Chhattisgarh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967
Chhattisgarh · state statute
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this actTHE MADHYA PRADESH SHASKIYA SEV AK
(ADHIVARSHIKI-AYU) ADHINIYAM, 1967
[No. 29 of 1967]
Received the as~ent of the Governor, on the 22nd December, 1967;
assent first published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette
Extraordinary on the 23rd December, 1967
An Act to proYidc for the age of Superannuation of GoYemment
:;ervrmts in ihe State of Madhya Pradesh and for certain
matters connected therewith.
Be it enacted by the Madbya Pradesh Legislature in the Eighteeth Year of
the Republic oflndia as follows :--
1. Short title.-This Act may be called the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya
Sevak (Adhivarshiyi-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967.
2. Amenclment of Fundamental Rules.-For rule 56 of the Fundamental
Rule applicable to the State of Madhya Pradesh as substituted by section 3 of
the Maclhva Pradesh Shaskiya Sewak Auivarya Sevanivritti Ka Vidhimanya
takaran Adhiniyam, 1967 (5 of 1967) (hereafter referred to as the said Act),
the following shall be substituted, namely :--
'·56. (1) Subject to the provisions of MadhyaPraccsh Anivarya Seva
Nivritti-Ayu) Niyam, 1967 a~ specified in tl1e Schedule to the Madhya Pradesh
Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1 '>C7, 1he date of compulsory
retirement of a Government servant other than class lV Government servant,
shall be the date on which he attains the age of 158 years.
(2) The date of compulsory retirement of Class IV Government servant
shall be the elate on which he attains the age of 60 years.
2(2. Amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 as substituted by Section 2 of the
Principal Act.-In section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki
Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (No. 29 of 1967) (hereinafter referred to as the principal
Act) after sub-rule (I) of Rule 56, the following sub-rule shall be inserted;
namely-
(1-a) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), every Government 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 afternoon of the last day of the preceding
month on attaining the age of sixty years.
- -· ------------------------------------
1. The age ha8 been raised to 58 years vide M.P. Act No. 9 of I 976.
2. Inserted by Act No. 35 of 1984. Published in MP. Rajpatra (Asadharan)
dated 15-11-1984 Page 3065. This amendment shall be deemed to have
come into i:;ffect from 5th September, 1984.
1134 Madhya Pradesh Services Manu::il [ Rr. 1-2
Exaplanat:on.-For the purpose of this sub-rule ''Teacher" means a
Gover~ment _ser~ant by whatever designation called, engaged in teaching in an
educat10nal mst1tution including technical or medical institutions, run by
Government].
3. Amendment of the Madhya Pradesh District and Session Judgee
Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits) Rufos, 1964-For sub-ruie (1) of rule 2 of the
Madhya Pradesh District and Sessions Judges (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits)
Rules, 1964 as substituted by section 4 of the said Act, the following sub-rule
shall be substituted, namely :-
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (!-A), the All India Services
Dea~h-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, as amended from time to time
heremafter referred to as the said Rules) shall apply mutatis mutandis to-
(a) all permanent District and Sessions Judges drawn from amongst the
officers of the Judicial Service of the former State 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 States of
Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal, with effect from the 1st April,
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
of Fundamental Rule 56, as substituted by section 2 of the said Act.
4. Amendments when to come into force.-Amendments made by section
2 and 3 shall come into force with effect from the 15th December, 1967.
5. Repeal.-The Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu)
Adhyadesh, 1967 (12 of 1967) is hereby repealed. 1
SCHEDULE
[ See sections 2 and 3]
Rules
1. (1) These rules may be called the Madhya Pradesh (Anivarya Seva
Nivritti-Ayu) Niyam, 1967.
(2) They shall come into force with effect fr,,:,m the 15th December, 1967.
2. (1) The age of compulsory retirement cf Government servants other
than Class IV Government serv,tnts shall be 258 years.
(2) The age of compulsory retirement of Class JV · Government
servants shall be 60 years.
l. Published in M.P. Rajpatra (Asadharan) dated 23-12-1967 Page 3144.
2. Substituted by M.P. Act No. 9 of 1976.
R
y
s
f;
f
Rr. 3] The M.P. (Anivarya Seva Nivritti-Ayu) Niyam, 1967 1135 ',
3. Those Government Servants who have already attained the age of 058
years on the date mentioned in sub-rule ( 2) of rule 1 and are in service of the
said date shall, as from the said date, be entitled to 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 leave:
Provided that the duration of such leave shall, in no case, extend beyond
the date of attainment of the age of 58 years.
COMMENTS
Synopsis
(1) Order of compuli,ory retirement
on payment of three month's
salary, not bad.
{2) Correction 6f entry about age.
(3)
(4)
(5)
Court's declaratory decree is not
monetary decree.
Raising age of Superannuation.
Compulsory retirement.
{l) Order of compulsory retirement on payment of three month's salary,
not 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 these 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 rna!a fide at all ? And after all, the
petitioner was only promoted temporarily as Assistant Engineer. He bad no
vested right to continue en the post and he was also not selected by Public
Service Commission.
The High Court 0f Madhya Pradesh agreeing with the above argument of
Government advocate held that the decision of the Government in compulsorily
retiring the petitioner at the 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
under the Rule could be effective only if the State Government simultaneously
offered payment to him of his three month's salary. Unless she payment of an
e-r.act amount accompanied the service of notice, the rder of compulsorily retire-
ment would be bad. ·
In the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dinanath Roi, decided on 11th
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
peu 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 Pradesh Services Manual [ Rr. 3
"The rul~ does not s~y ~h~t the pa~ sho~ld be given in cash or by the
cheque at the tune the notice is issued. knowrng the way the Government ue
run, it_woul~ be difficult to ascribe this intention to the rule making author,ty.
':fhere 1s nt? uoubt}~at the Go~emml':nt ~crvant would be entitled to the pay in
hen of notice but t111s would be m th;; ordmary course."
In the present case the language of the rule is akin to the language used in
the Rule in Din([n([f/i Rai's Case. 1969 Ser. LR. 647 (SC) and we~would prefrr
to construe the rule in the m~nner: it was done in Dinanath's case. The payms::nt
contemplated by the Rule 1s neither payment to be made forthwith, simultane
ously with the notice, nor wou\d the notice be effective only upon paymrnt being
made. Payment cou!d follow m the ordmary course.
Even otherwise there was substantial compliance of the rule. The offer of
Rs. 1770/- towards three month's salary, was made, presumbly, on the same
day notice of compulsory retirement wa, served or soon thereafter. The petition
does not disclose the date of service of notice. The grievance of the petitioner
is that the salary offered was calculated 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 the
petitioner became entitled to it and that date was L3.1969. If he was not
considered on that date for any reason whatsoever, it would be presumed, ho
says, that the competent authority had no objection to his crossing the efficiency
bar. ·
The High Court held that the petitioner cannot claim the sanction to
cross the Efficiency Bar simply because he had retired. The sanction could be
given or withheld or even after his retirement. If it was given, he could claim
benefits eve:1 though retired. If it was withheld, he did not lose anything,
because he bad already stopped at that stage. It was. therefore held that no
punishment inflicted. U.K. Narayanan Vs. State of 1'rfadhya Pradesh and others.
1975 M.P.L.J. 404: !975 J.L.J. 760.
(2) Couection of entry about age.--The facts of the case are that in the
year 1957 when for the first time after the reorganisation of States, the petitioner
was called upon by the Settlement Officer ro disclose his date of birth. The
year 1917 mentioned in llta: Service Book did not seem proper record as the
date and the month of the petitioner's birth were not mentioned and the Service
Book in<licated nothing to show that the entry was verified with reference to
any confirmatory documentary evidence like the matriculation certificate or the
Municipal Bir!h certificate. The petitioner produced the matriculation certi!lcate
and entered the date of birth as 8th April, 1915, not with an idea of creating
conflict, nor there is reason to believe that the entry was made on the insistence
of Shri RL Gupta. Presumably he made the entry having reason t0 believe
that the same shall be acted upon. Whatever be the re,1l intention in the mind
of the petitioner, any reasonable man would accept the declaration to be true
and scton act on it.
A duty was cast upon the petitioner to disclose his date of birth along
with confirmatory evidence He chose to produce the matriculation certificate.
He entered the date as shown therein without protest. He was therefore debarred
from producing the horoscope instead and asserting that the real date of birth
was 13th Shukla Samva1, 1974 equivalent to 20th August, 1917. He could have
agitated the issue then and get the decision on the question of his date of birth.
He has come to the High Court thirteen years after when the Government has
chosen to act on his own admission , they gave him extension of service for a
year and retired. him with effect from 22nd April, 1971.
...
\
-
Rr. 3] The M.P. (Anivarya Seva Nivritti-Ayu) Niyam, 1967 1D7
It was held that the petitioner was guiity of acquiescence. He ac?epted_
the date of birth a~ 8th April, 1915. The case also attracts the doctrme ot
estoppel by negligence. The petitioner allowed the two entries to continue and
thereby led the Government to choose the entry which prima facir:. appeared
genuine and had the support of confirmatory evidence. The petitioner cannot
now turn round and say that he has been prejudiced. He should have taken
steps to get one of the entries 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 petitioner's matriculation certificate. It wr.s customary
with the Government to rely on the matriculation certificate mostly, for purpose
of d~te of birth. The petitioner's n_egligence lay in permitting !he two entr_ies_ to
contmue, and the latter entry in particular to be construed as his own adm1ss1011
in the matter of date of birth.
Further it was held that the petitioner was guilty of supression and mis
statement of facts inasmuch as he did not disclose initially that he had himself
entered in Part II 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 was 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. M akra•
dhwraj Singh v.~. 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 l;N. Saxena Vs. State of M.P., decided on the 3Cth January, 1967,
the Supreme "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
Administration Department Memorandum No. 433-258-I (iii) 763 dated the
28th February, 1963 is invalid in since the said memorandum was merely an execu
tive dire;;tio~1~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 aforesaid memorandum and involved considerable financial burden
on the State Exchequer by way of payment of arrears. There were likely to be
other complications regarding continuance in service etc.
Therefore after the decision of th::it appeal the Governor had promulgated
an Ordinance which was replaced on April 20, 1963 hy the M.P. Shaskiya Sevak
A_nivarya Sevaniviriti ka Vidhimanyatakaran Vidyayak Takaram Vidyeyak Adhi
myam, 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 is vested with a right not to pay the dues
of appellant from the date of his retirement (December 3, 1963) onwards. In
effect this Act has made provisions of Compulsorily Retirement Rules, 1965
applicable from March 1, 1963.
Tbe appellant again moved the High Court 0hallenging the validity of the
Act which was dismissed so an appeal 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 Constitution, had been
created by the Supreme Court's Decree dated 30th January, 1967 in favour of the
appellant· and against the State. 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 (2) of the Constitution;
1138 Madhya Pradesh Services M:a,1rnal
(ii) That the impugned Act is ultra vires the Constitution inasmuch as it
seeks to validate the retirement of the appellant and other like him by chang
ing their service conditions with retrospective dfect. In so so doing, the State
legislature has over-stepped the limits of legislative powers conferred on it by
Article 309 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the State of Mvsore Vs. Padamabhacharya etc. (1966)
2 SCR 494. ,
. (iii) that the impugned Act, encroaches upon the judicial field inasmuch
at it overrules and make unenforceable the decision elated 30th January, 1967
in Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 670 of 1963, and in so doing, it off
ends Articles 141, l 42 and 144 of the Consitution ;
(iv) Even if the impugned Act is valid, clauses ( b) and ( c) of section
5 of the Act, on a proper construction, do not vacate 1he decree ofthe Supreme
~ourt, requiring the respondent to the appellant the peen niary benefits result
mg from the success of his earlier appeal (CAA. 670/65) in Supreme Court.
Clause (b) of section 5 merely bars the maintenance or continuation of any
proceeding hr any amount as payment, towards salary. The appellant is not
seeking to maintain or continue any execution proceeding in Court, for the
recovery of any amount toward;; salary, the decree being a declaratory one,
None of these contentions were held to be tenable .
. o? perusal of the Supreme Court decree referred to above would show
that 1~ 1s not a money decree, raising a judgment-debt. It is a declaratory decr_ee
de~l~rmg ,that the respondent's order dated September 11, 1963, compulsorily
retmng tne appellant was invalid, and consequently the appellant would be
deemed to· have continued in service.: till he attained the age of 58 years.
The fmther declaration that he will be- entitled to such benefits as may accrue
to ~i!11 by virtue of the succes'> of the writ petition was only incid~ntal_or
anc!lhary to the main relief and will faU or stand with the same. This being
the position the decree did not create an indefeasible right of property in
favour of the appellant.
The distinction between a 'leo-islative and a 'judicial act is well known,
though in some specific instance the line which separates one category from
the other may not be easily discernible. Adjudication of the parties according
to la~ enacted by the legislature is a judicial function. In the performance
of this function the court interprets and gives effect to the intent and man
date of the legis!atnre as embodied in the statute. On the other hand, it is
fo_r the legislature to lay down the law prescribing norms of conduct which
will govern parties and transactions and to require and to give effect to that
law.
. It was therefore, held that in enacting the impugned provisions, the leg
islature _ha~ :iot exceeded the limits of its legislative powers nor encroached
on the Judicial field. I. N. Saksena Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. 1976
U.J. (SC) 223. .
In Piare Dusada and others Vs. The King Emperor 1944 F.C.R. 61, 1;he
Governor General by Ordinance repealed the Special Criminal Courts Ordin
ance TI of 1942. There was a provision in the rrncalina ordinance for con
firma_tion and continuance of sentences of Spe~ial c~urts and retrial of
pendrng cases. The appellant therein had been convicted and sentenced by
Special Criminal Court which was held have to jurisdiction to try the case by
an order of a court Section 3 (l) of the Special Criminal Courts (Repeal) Or-
Rr. J] The M.P. (Anivarya Seva 'Nivritti-Ayu) Niyam, 196'7 1139
dinance 1943 conferred validity and full effectiveness on sentences passed by
Special' Criminal Courts by conferring jurisdiction on them with retrospective
effect. The Federal Court held that by promulgating and repealing Ordinance
of 1943 the legislative authority had not attempted to do indirectly what it
could n~t do directly or to exercise judicial power in the guise of legislation
It was furth0r, held that the Ordinance was not invalid on the ground that the
kgishtive authority had validated by respective legislation proceedings held
in courts which were void for want of jurisdiction as there was nothing in the
Indian Constitution which precluded legislative from doing so.
(4) Raising the age of superannuation.-In !he case of Batahari .fena Vs.
The State of Orissa. A LR. 1971 S.C. 1516, rehance was placed on certain
observations in the tkcisiou or the supreme Court in Gurdev Singh Sindhu
Vs. State of Punjab. (1964) SCR 587 : A.LR. 1964 S.C. 1585. There the
Supreme Court struck down Article 9.1 of the Pepsu Service Regulations under
which the Government sought to retain an absolute right to retire any Govern
ment servant after he had completed ten years qualifying service without giving
any reason. In that case the petitioner who had 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
practical district training courses, and after promotion to the rank of Superin~
tendent of Police in an, officiating capacity in February 1950 in the said State
of Pepsu, was asked to show cause by notice dated 25th March 1963 as
to why he ,should not be compulsorily retired. The petitioner complained
that the notic;: issued to him was invalid on the ground that the article on
which it was based was itself ultra vires and inoperative and only question
before the Court was whether the impugned article was shown to be constitu
tioually invalid. Referring to Satislz Chand,vrr Anand Vs. The Union of India
1953 SCR 585 : A.LR. 1953 SC, 250, and .o certain dicta of the majority
Judges in Moti Ram Deka Vs. General ,Manager, North East Frontier Railway.
A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 600 : (1964) 5 SCR 683, the Supreme Court observed by way
of explanation that : " .......... the majority judgment took the precaution
of adding a note of caution that if a rule of compulsory rctiremf-.nt purported
to give authority to the Government to tern1Inate the services of a permanent
public servant at a very early stage of his career the question about the vali
dity of such a rule may have to be examined. That is bow in accepting
\the view that a rnle of compu1&0ry retirement can be treated as valid and as
_ constituting ar 0xception to the General rule that the terminat!l).J. of the ser~
vices of a permanL · !111blic servant would amount to his removal u·, , r '311
(2), the Supreme Cuurt added a r;der and made it perfectly clr.ar that if the
minimum period of service which was prescribed by the relevam rules UJJ1teld
by the earlier decisions was 25 years, it could not be reasonably reduced in
that behalf. In other words, the majority judgment indicates that what indi
cates what influenced the decision was the fact that a fairly large number of
years !lad been prescribed by the rule of compulsory refaement as constituting
the minimum period of service after which alone the said)ule could be invoked.
The Court further observed foat that the safeguards which Article 311
(2) affords to permanent public servants is no more than this that in case it
is intended to dismiss, remove or reduce them in rank a reasonable opportunity
should be given to them of showing against the action proposed to be taken
in regard to them. A claim for security to tenure does not mean security to
tenure for dish, aest, corrupt, or inefficient public servants. The ~]aim merely
insists that before th,;:y are removed, the permanent public servants should be
given an opportunity to meet the charge on which they are sought to be re-
1140 Madhya Pradesh Service Manual I Rr. 3
moved. Therefore, it seems that only two exceptions can be treated a, valid
in <lea ling with the scope and effect of the protection afforded by Arti. ·le 31 l
(2), if a permanent public servant is asked to retire on the ground that he has
reached the age of superannuation which has been reasonably fixed, .\rticlc
311 (1) does not apply, because such retirement is neither dismissal nor r, nioval
of the pablic &orvants. If a permanent public servant is compulsorily retired
under the rule.c; which prescribe the normal age of superannuation and provide
for a reasCJnably lo 1g period of qualified service artor which alone comr:,Jlsory
retirement can b0 ordered, that again may not amount to dismissal or r,~moval
under Article 3 l l (2) 1111inly because that is the effect of a long series of de
cisions of Supreme Court. But where while reserving the power to the St ate
to compulsorily retire a permanent public servant, a rule is framed pre~:cribing
a proper age of superannuation, and ano~her rule is added giving the power
to the State Lo compu!ss:>rily retire a public servant at the cud of 10 years of
his service,. that c-annot, be treated as falling outside Article 311 (2). The
termination of the ~ervice of a permanent pubJi,;: servant under such a rule
though compulsory retirement, is, iu substance removal under Ariicle 311 ( 2)".
The above observations relied on the counsel do not help the appellant
The above ob3ervations show that a rule which permits a Government to ask
an officer to retire after an unreasonably short period of service must before
the normal age of supernnuation would be hit by Article 31 l. They cannot
apply when the period of qualifying scrrice mentioned in the rule is 11ot un
reasonably shot and the normal age of supernuuation fixed is not unacc:ouu
tably early. Before May 1%3 a Government servant in Government servant
in Orissa had to retire on attaining the age of 55 y,,ars whether he had com
pleted 30 years' qualifying service or not. The fact that the age of superannu
ation was ra:,ed from 55 or 58 while Goverunent reserved to itself a right to
ask any employee to retire at the age of 55 does nc~ violate t'...,ticle 311 (2).
Secondly the order did not cast any aspcr~ions or stigma on the 2ppellant
which would attract Article: 31 I, A Government has a right to require the
Governrnent servant t0 retire at the age of 55 without assigning any reason.
The fact that by the notificatiou of 5th February. 1964 certain guidelines were
indicate<l lo the Heads of Departments iu considering whether ::i Gov,~rnment
servant shoulJ continue in service beyond the case of 55 years, one of the
•actors for consideration being lack of integrity, did not imply that a11y officer
whose continuance in service was not advised lacked in integrity. Batahare Jena
Vs. The Orissa. A.LR. S.C. 1516.
It ls well known that a law or st ... utory ruk should be so interpreted as
to make it valid and not valid. If this cx,-ression 1s con fined to v, hat was
argued before the High Court namely that it give:. power to the Government
to allow a Government servant to remain in service even beyond the age of 55
years for s1)ecial reasons the rule will not be rendered invalid and its validity
will noL be put in jeopardy. So conslrued it is apparent that the appel!ant
could not have hecn retired compulsory under the Saurashtra Rules be,ore
he had attained age of 55 years. By applying the Bombay rule his conditions
of service were varied to his disadvantage because he could then be compul
~orily retired as soon as he attained the age of 50 years. Taklwrrarr Shivdattmy
Jfankad VI'. State of Gujarat. A.T.R. l 770 S.C. 143.
(5) Compulsory retirement.--In il!oti Ram Deka Vs. General iHanager N.
1:·F. Railway Afaligaon Pend11. 1954 (5) S.C.R. 1964 L.C.R. !'i83: A.LR. 1?64
S.C. 600 one of the matters which came up for considerat1011 waq the eflcct
of a service rule which permitted compulsory retirement ,,·ithout fi~ing the
'· ' •"'
Rr. 3-4 J The M.P. (Anivarya Seva Nivritti-Ayu) Niyarn, 1967 1141
minimum period of service after which the r!-lle could be invoked. According
to the observations of Venkataram Ayyar J. 111 State of Bombay Vs. Saubhag
chand Af. Joshi. 1958 S.C.R. 571 : A.LR. .1957 L.C. 892, the application of
such a rule would be tantamount to _d isnussal r~n:oval ~mder Article 31 · (2)
of the Constitution. There were certam other dec1s10ns or the Supreme Court
which were relevant on this point viz. P. Balakotaiah Vs. Union of India. 1958
S.C.R. l052 : A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 232 and Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab. 1961-
1 S.C.R. 88: A.LR. 1960 S.C. 1305. All these decisions were considered in
l'vfotiram Deka Vs. General Manager N.E F. Railways, A.LR. 1964 S.C. 600 and .
the true legal position was stated in the majority judgm~~1t at pa~e 726 of
of S.C.R. and at page 617 of A.I.R. thm : ·' ...... We t111nk that 1f any rule
permits the ~ppropria!e authority !o retire comp_ul_sorily a civil servant witho~1t
imposing a hm1tatton m th:at b~hatf that such c!Vll ~erva'.1t should have put m
a minimum period of service, tnat rule would be mvalld and the so-called
retirement ordered under the said Rule would amount to removal of the civil
servant within the meaning of Article 311 (2)".
In Gurdev Singh Sidhu Vs. State of Punjab. 1964 7 S.C.R. 587 : A.LR. 1964
S.C. 1585, it was pointed out that the only two exceptions to the protection
afforded by Article 31 l (2) were, (l) where a permanent public seivant was
asked to retire on the ground that he had reached the age of superannuation
'which was reasonably fixed ; (2) that he was compulsorily retired under the
rule which prescribed the normal age of superaunation and provided a reasona•
b!y long period of qualified service after which alone compulsory retirement
could be valid. The basis on which this view has proceeded is that for efficient
administration it is necessary 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 does not lay down a reasonably long period of qualified servlce is
in substance remova, under Article 311 (2), The principle is that the ·rule
relating to compulsory retirement of Government servant must not only ,·ontain
the 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 gi".e. a~ example, if 5? years have been specified as the age of
superannuation and 1f 1t 1s sought to ret1re the servant even before that period
it should be provided in the rule that he could be retired after he has attained
the age of 50 years or he has put in service for a period of 25 years
It is well settled that a law or a statutory rule should be so interpreted
, as to make it valid not invalid. It this expression is confined to what was argued
<l·: , .. -before the High Court, namely that it , '.ves power to oovernment to allow a
. Government servant to remain in service >L: beyond the age of 55 years
· 'for special reasons the rule will not be rendered invalid aud its validity will not
be put i7:1 jeopardy. So ?onstrued it is apparent that the appellant could not have
been retired compulsorily under the Saurashtra Rules before he had attained the
age of 55 years. By applying the Bombay rule his condition of service were
varied to his disadvantage because he could then be compulsorily retired as soon
as he attained the of 50 years As the previous approval of the Central Gover
mcnt was not obtai1?ed. in accordance with the proviso to Section 115 (7) of
the States Re-organisat10n Act, 1956, the Bombay Rule could not be. made
applicable to the appellant. Takhetrary Shivdattary Mankad Vs. State of Gujarat
A.LR. 1970 S.C. 143 : 1969 Ser. 572 : (1970) I S.C.A. 138 : 11 Guj. L.R. 325 :
(1970) I S.C.R. 244.
4. A Gov~rument ~crv,mt_rnay. be given extension of service beyond the
age 5l:l years. su~Ject toh1s physical 1Jtne·,s and outstnnding quality of-his work
but not ord111a;-1ly beyond the age of 60 years. ·
.... •z-z-
1142 Madhya Pr;odesh Services Manual
14-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 4, a Gov:ornment Servant
who had been a freedJm fighter may, on production of a certificate in the form
below and subject to his otherwise being fit t0 bJ continued in service. be uivc:n
extemion of ~ervice beyond the age of 55 years for such period not exceeding
the period for_ which such gove_rnment servan, v,cns in actual detention and/or
imprisonment including the penod undergone as under rial in connection ,,vitll
the freedom movement, subject to 1mtximum of Three years.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this rule "a freedom fighter'' me&n a
Government servant who was detained and/or imprisoned on accoun:. of his
political activities in connection with freedom move,ricnt during the period
from 1919 to 1946.]
5. The Madhya Pradesh (Age of Compulsory Retirement) Rule&, 1966
are hereby repealed.
2 [FORM OF CERTIFICATE
CERTIFIED that Shri .......... S /o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , . , ......... .
Rio.. . . . . , . . . was imprisoned and/ or detained in connection with
the freedom moYement at the p1::i.ce, for the period nnd under the provisions
of the law mentioned below.
Place Period
Dated the
Provision of law under which
impris1 >ned or detained.
District !Jfogistrafc.
<;p;rq ctft ~-~ * ~
, . \)";;)-;;rRcti"IBl:t~-
' --q-5!' W. ~-"Q!l'.1:TT. 2
( 3t~ It! i(OI)
~ ~ SFh1ru1(l
$TT. ~ 'ITT@ ~
'IJ:l. tj\_ 108/~/2000.
~====================================:=====~~-=-:.::..:~.:=·:: = = ==
~. -J:~cITT:. ITTfc'fi 14 ~ 2000-~ 24, W<=F 1922
'lTT1l1B, ITTfc'fi ?_ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0
-~ - '-\~'-\~-~-<11 (m. ).-i:i~ ~~ ~'TI q)l f1L1fo1f&a 3TTQR'lfq, ~ ~ fu,w. ~?_ ~. 7<000 <fiT ~ q;1
·• ,;im : ·m ~ t ~ wrnttITTUI cfil ~ * ~ ~ ~ -;;nm t .
'ti~ * ~ ~ 1Tt:! 'B (11!.f! 611<~lliBI{,
am. <li. ~, ~ ~-
,.
,,. , l'fl, ~ooo <li1' ~ ~ ~ VTR n; ~ ••~ mf1nf . ( 3mflITTl!T)'' ii~~~~: ~ooo ,·.
:v~~~TTt-l
( ?_) ~ m~ cfiT mam -:;m 'ti~ ~ Wfcfi" ( .m~-~) ~~ mtl'f.P-rq ' ma;ra ,Tl! n:m
'IJT'N.
699
700
-q~ 3TTU
f.{,:rq ~ ,,
wt ,,.,\9 l.fi1
um,~ ~m
v1mmfl«t 1J"'
~(•Ms1Q.;,;i'-1
~) ...,f, ~
~-
7<. i::i~~ ~ ~ c d~~ -31T'.!) d~~. z '?, r, \'.! c ~ ~;,, m
'F'I f:p.rq ( •-fiUsiL!~i:1 ~) it- R'-111 ~r. it mr.fll ( ~) "'fi 61J"s ("::;1) "f: nm -rn:, ~"TI 13·~
~ ~ 319.ffil : - "t.
'' (en)~~~~.~ ~o ~ cfi1 $m ircn 1fTT ~ m -:TTPf.1 '-1° c!"Q ".f;l
~ ~ ii,~ "3f1 '41 ~ it, f:l,m '41 wn, m ~ cfiTTTl1 ~. :m rnfcm .
~- ~ ~ il i-H1FF'l_ii ~ -:J'fl ~- ".
so. °"'~'"'\'.,-~-31 cm. )_-'ITT@ it rtfui.rr-r ii, ~ ~Y,l it "&TT-:s < n * ~Tj -ii, 1F71"1F.71
( 3TI~-3lT'j) -mn~-A efi~~. ~000 (~ Z'<. ~~('CO) 'T>i .:mhft 3r:p=-!R ~ "-f, i;rrf~ff,TT TI, T~~
fcl,m~t
Tl;.~ if;-~ if;-~~ n'4!
MADHYA PRADESH J\DHlNIY AM
N, ,_ I l/ <li 20()(1.
3m'. -it. fum, 3~
THE MADHYA PRADESH SHASAKIYA SEVAK (ADHIVARSIIIKI-AYl 1l
SANSHODHAN ADHINIY AM, 2000.
!Received the assent of the Governor on 31st May, 2000; assent first puhlishcd in the ",\laclll\.i l'rncksh c;ai
(Extra-ordinar,r, dated the 14th June, 2000.]
An Act further to amend the l\fadhya Pradesh Shasakiya Scvak ( Aclhi, a,·shiki-,\
Adhiniyam, 1967.
Be it enacted by the Madhya Pradesh Legislature in the Fifty
of India as follows :-
Short title and I. (I) This Act may he called the Madhya Pradesh Shasakiya Sevak ( J\dhivarshiki-A
commencement. Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2000.
Amendment of
Fundamental
Ruic 56 as
suhstitnted hy
Section 2 of
the Madhya
Pradesh Act
No. 29 of 1967.
(2) It shall he deemed to have come into force with effect from the I :st
January. 2000.
2. In Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Sha_c;akiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-J\yui Adhi1m;_
1967 (No. 29 of 1967), for clause (a) of suh-rulc (2) of Ruic 5(1 ,lf the Fundamental Ruic,. I
following ctau_c;e shall he subslitutcd. namely :-
"(a) A Government servant may. in the public interest. be retired at any t,mc ;tllcf
has completed 20 years qu<1tifying service, or he attains the age of fifty vca
whichever is earlier, without assigning any reason by giving him a 11\ll
111 writing.".