http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K. R. TAHILIANI & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/02/1980

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. KOSHAL, A.D.

CITATION:  1980 AIR  953            1980 SCR  (2)1092  1980 SCC  (3) 309  CITATOR INFO :  O          1987 SC1907  (3,5)  RF         1987 SC1933  (6,10)

ACT:      Fundamental Rules-Rule  56(j)  (i)-Scope  of-Government servant officiating  in a  class I or class II post-If could be compulsorily retired.

HEADNOTE:      On  the   question   whether   a   Government   servant officiating in  a class  1 or class II service or post could be retired  compulsorily by  exercising power under r. 56(j) (i) of  the Fundamental  Rules after he has attained the age of 50 years. ^      HELD :  1. Rule  56(j)(i) is  meant to cover only those who are  in a  post on  a  regular  basis,  that  is,  in  a substantive capacity  and not  on an officiating basis only. [1094E]      2. A government servant ordinarily holds service at the pleasure of  the State  which means  pleasure  canalised  by rules. [1093H]      3. An  officiating hand  has no  right to  the post and cannot be  strictly said  to be in that service or post as a member of  that service.  In short an officiating government servant does  not really  belong to  class  I  or  class  II service until  he acquires a right thereon. The structure of the clause "if he is in class I or class II service or post" emphasises the  nature of the service or post  vis-a-vis the Government servant  concerned.  When  a  government  servant belonging to  class I  or class  II service  or  post  on  a regular basis  has to  be retired compulsorily rule 56(j)(i) comes to  the rescue  of the Government. But if he is only a temporary hand who has no right to the post he can always be reverted to  the post,  if any,  on which  he  has  a  lien. Similar is the position of an officiating hand. [1094B-D]      4. Although  the rule  vests an  absolute right  in the appropriate authority  to retire  a  government  servant  in public interest  absolutism, and  arbitrariness are contrary to the  scheme  of  the  rules  of  this  kind.  Even  while exercising the  power under  this rule the State should take care not  to act  arbitrarily,  misguided  by  the  absolute

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

expression in the rule. [1094F-G]

JUDGMENT:      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 L.P.A. No. 97 of 1977.      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 Appellant in both the appeals. 1093      M. K.  Ramamurthy, G.  D. Gupta  and Miss Anita for the Respondent in CA No. 850/76.      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 Government  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 servant 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.      The biographical  details of  these  two  officials  in government service  need not detain us because the facts are 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  Class 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 compulsory  retirement provision.  The reasons may briefly  be stated  by us  now although  these have been elaborately set out by the High Court (in the Delhi case).      We may  extract the  relevant part  of the Rule at this stage:           "56. (j)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in      this rule  the appropriate authority shall, if it is of      the opinion that it is in public interest to do so have      the absolute  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                post  and   had  entered  Government  service                before attaining the age of thirty five years                after  he  has  attained  the  age  of  fifty                years."      A Government  servant ordinarily  holds service  at the pleasure of  the State but in our Republic where the rule of law prevails  even pleasure  is canalised  by rules.  Viewed from this  perspective security  of tenure  is  a  value  in itself. In Government jurisprudence it is, 1094 however, open  to the  State to make rules under the proviso to Article  309; and  Rule 56 (j) is one such rule. Assuming as we  do, the  validity of  the said  Rule, the question of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

construction causes little difficulty once the scheme of the provision is understood correctly.      An officiating  hand has  no right  to the  post and is perhaps a  fleeting bird  who may  have to  go back  to  the substantive post  from which  he has  been  promoted  on  an officiating basis.  What is  more to the point, a person who has been  appointed de  novo may  begin his  service  on  an officiating basis  or on a temporary basis and it is obvious that he has no right to the post and cannot be strictly said to be  in that  service or post as a member of that service. In short,  an officiating Government servant does not really belong to  Class I  or Class  II service until he acquires a right thereon.  Even viewed  closely and  meticulously,  the structure of  the clause,  namely, "if  he is  in Class I or Class II  services or  post", emphasises  the nature  of the service or  post vis-a-vis the Government servant concerned. We need not go into the semantic shapes, lexical niceties or linguistic nuances  but only  go  through  the  meaning  and purpose  of   the  provision.   When  a  Government  servant belonging to  a Class  I or  Class II  service or  post on a regular basis  has to  be retired  compulsorily, Rule 56 (j) (i) comes to the rescue of the Government. But if he is only a temporary hand, he has no right to the post and can always be reverted  to the  post, if  any, on  which he has a lien. Similar is  the position  of an  officiating hand.  Thus, we have reached  an inevitable  conclusion that Rule 56 (j) (i) is meant  to cover only those who are in a post on a regular basis, i.e.,  in a  substantive  capacity,  and  not  on  an officiating basis only.      In passing, we may make it clear that although the Rule vests an  absolute right  in the  appropriate  authority  to retire  a   Government  servant   in  public  interest,  yet absolutism and  arbitrariness are  contrary to the scheme of the rules we are concerned with. We, therefore emphasise the fact that  even while exercising power under Rule 56 (j) (i) the State  will take  care not to act arbitrarily, misguided by the absolute expression in the Rule.      We dismiss the two Appeals and vacate the stay in Civil Appeal No.  850 of 1978. In each case, costs quantified in a sum of  Rs. 2,500/-  (Two Thousand and Five Hundred) will be paid. The counsel for the respondents in both the cases have generously agreed  that Rs.  1,000/- (One  Thousand), out of the said  sum be  paid over to the Free Legal Aid Society in each case. P.B.R.                                   Appeals dismissed. 1095