http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: B. NARAYANA MURTHY & ORS.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1971

BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, I.D. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) MITTER, G.K. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.

CITATION:  1971 AIR 1716            1971 SCR  741  1971 SCC  (2) 425

ACT: Educational   Institutions-Raising  age  of  retirement   of teachers-Re-fixing   it   at   lower    age-validity-Whether violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of Constitution.

HEADNOTE: The retirement age of teachers in the service of the  Andhra Pradesh  Government, Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis  and Municipalities  was  fixed  at  55  years  till  1964   when Government raised the age of superannuation to 58 years.  In 1966  the  age was raised to 60 years, but, on  November  3, 1967,  Government issued a G.O. cancelling with effect  from November  30, 1967, the two earlier G.0s. extending the  age of  retirement; and corresponding changes were made  in  the rules   relating  to  teachers  in  the  service  of   Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis and Municipalities. Some teachers challenged the G.O. dated November 3, 1967 and the  ’High Court, holding that the teachers whose  term  had already  been  extended  had a  vested  right  to  continue, directed  the State Government not to give effect to the  G. O. and the consequential rules as against such teachers.  In pursuance  of  the  judgment of the  High  Court  Government issued a memorandum dated November 8, 1968, giving effect to the  directions  of the High Court and also  providing  that teachers who had attained the age of 55 years after November 30,  1967,  should be dealt with under the  G.O.  dated  3rd November,  1967, and should be retired on attaining the  age of 55 years. The petitioners challenged the memorandum on the ground that by  not  extending the benefit of the judgment of  the  High Court to them, land by fixing November 30, 1967, as the date for   determining  who  should  retire,   Government   acted arbitrarily and violated the equality rule embodied in Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. HELD:(1)  It was open to the Government to  reduce  the age  of  retirement without exposing such reduction  to  any constitutional infirmity.  Fixing November 30, 1967, as  the date  for the classification of teachers who should  retire at the age of 55 years could not be considered irrational or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

unreasonable.  The object of raising the retirement age  was to  solve  the problem of the dearth of  qualified  teachers because  of  the  opening of new schools and  the  need  for maximum  utilisation of trained intelligensia.  As  soon  as the  dearth  of qualified  teachers  disappeared  Government restored the retiring age to 55 years. [748F, 750C] (2)If  the  Government order dated November 3,  1967,  was valid  then ,the petitioners had to retire at the age of  55 years  notwithstanding  the fact that after  their  initial employment  the retirement age was raised first to 58  years and then to 60 years, because, those intermediary orders had been  cancelled by the G.O. dated November 3,  1967,  before the earlier ,Government orders became operative by  actually retaining  in  service the present petitioners  after  their superannuation tinder the earlier rule.  The 742 other employees were given benefit pursuant to the order  of the High Court which had since become final.; Merely because by  some subsequent orders the extended date  of  retirement was  accepted  in respect of those employees  it  would  not entitle, by itself, the present petitioners to claim similar extension  of age of retirement The directions given by  the High.  Court provide a valid differentia and the petitioners could  not claim to be equated with those employees who  had been given such benefit. [748G749C] (3)It  could  not  be  said  that  the  Government  having accepted the judgment of the High Court, the earlier  orders increasing   the   age   of   compulsory   retirement   must automatically  be held to be revived.  The  Government  only gave the benefit of the decision of the High Court to  those employees  whose  cases were covered by the  principle  laid down by the High, Court. [749H; 750B] (4)Fundamental  rule  56(a) does not govern  the  teachers employed,   by  the  Municipalities,  Zilla  Parishads   and Panchayat Samitis. [751A] (5)The  submission  that  the  rules  applicable  to   the teachers  employed’  by such bodies were intended to  be  in conformity  with the fundamental rule is of no avail to  the petitioners  because those rules could not be considered  to have  been  automatically  modified  as  a  result  of  an)( amendment  in the fundamental rule 56(a), when there  is  no consequent  modification  of the  rules  governing  teachers employed in such bodies. [751B]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 144, 216,  217, 221, 223, 242, 247 to 249, 308 and 324 of 1970. Petition  under Article 32 of the Constiution of  India  for the enforecement of fundamental rights. L.M.  Singhvi, Kanta Rao and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri,  for the petitioners (in W. P. No. 144/1970.). B.Kanta   Rao   and  K.  Rajendra  Chaudhuri,   for   the petitioners, (in W. P. No. 21 of 1970). M.C. Chagla, S. S. Shukla and B. Kanta Rao, for the peti- tioners (in W. P. No. 249 of 1970). S.s. Shukla and B. Kanta Rao, for the petitioners (in  W. P: Nos. 216, 248 and 324 of 1970). Sarjoo  Prasad and A. Subba Rao, for the petitioners (in  W. P. No. 217of 1970). A.   Subbh Rao, for the petitioners (in W. P. No. 247/1970.) K,   Jayaram,  for  the petitioners (in W. P. Nos.  223  and 242, of 1970). B.   Kanta Rao and G. Narasimhulu, for the petitioner (in W.   P.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

No. 308 of 1970). P.   Ram Reddy and A . V. V. Nair, for respondents No. 1  W. P.  Nos. 144, 216, 217, 221, 223, 242, 247, 248 and  249  of 1970, 743 P.Rom Reddy and P. Parameswara Rao, for respondent Nos. 6 and 28 (in W. P. No. 217 of 1970), respondents Nos. 4 and 10 in  W. P. No. 223/70), respondents Nos. 84, 38, 52,  83  and 120 (in W. P. No. 247/1970), respondent No. 2 (in W. P. .No. 248). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, This batch of writ petitions raise common questions  of fact  and law and have, therefore, been heard  together  and ,are being disposed of by a common judgment.  As the salient features of all the writ petitions are similar in  essential particulars,  we  may, for understanding the nature  of  the controversy,  only refer to the facts of writ  Petition  No. 217  of  1970  (B.  V. Subhaiah & Ors  v.  State  of  Andhra Pradesh  &  Ors.), because Shri Sarjoo Prasad  who  led  the arguments  on  behalf  of the petitioners  addressed  us  by reference  to  this  writ petition as  illustrative  of  the common controversy. Writ  Petition  No. 217 of 1970 has been presented  in  this Court  by  387 teachers under Art. 32  of  the  Constitution praying  for  a writ in the nature of mandamus or  order  or direction restraining the respondents from giving effect to, (i)  the orders, G. O. Ms. No. 2219 dated November 3,  1967, read  with Government of Andhra Pradesh Memo No. 6573  dated November 8, 1968 and G. O. Ms. No. 1321 dated June 17, 1969, (ii)  the  substituted  r. 14 of the Rules  made  under  the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, and (iii) the substituted r.  16  of the Rules made under the  Panchayat  Samitis  and Zilla  Parishads Act.  A declaration is also claimed to  the effect that order No. G. O. Ms. No. 2219     dated  November 3, 1967 read with Government Memo No. 6573   dated  November 8, 1968 and G. O. Ms. No. 1321 dated June    17, 1969,  Note 2 of the Fundamental Rule 56(a) and the Rules made under the Andhra  Municipalities  Act  and  Andhra  Pradesh  Panchayat Samitis Zilla Parishads Act are illegal and unconstitutional and for a further declaration that the rules laid down in G. O.  Ms. No. 3099 dated November 30, 1964 and No. 1596  dated June  26, 1966 are applicable to the petitioners subject  to the conditions stipulated in those orders. These petitioners claim to be working as permanent  teachers in  the  service of Zilla Parishads, Panchayat  Samitis  and Municipalities  for the last 25 or 30 years.   According  to their averments, the retirement age for the teachers in  the service  of the Andhra Pradesh Government, Zilla  Parishads, Panchayat  Samitis  and the Municipalities is  fixed  at  55 years.   Under F. R. 56(a) and the Subsidiary Rules  of  the Andhra  Pradesh  Government 1962, a government  servant  may however  be  retained in service after completing  55  years with the sanction of the Government and in 744 special  circumstances  he may even be retained  in  service after  60  years.  Rule 14 of the Establishment  Rules  made under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959, and r. 16 of  the Rules made under the Andhra Pradesh Zilla  Parishads and  Panchayat  Samitis  Act,  1959, also  fix  the  age  of retirement  at 55 years for the employees of  these  bodies. The  Fundamental Rule providing for extension of the age  of retirement  with  the sanction of the Government  on  public ground was also claimed in the petition to be applicable  to the employees under the Municipalities, Zilla Parishads  and Panchayat Samitis, though at the hearing no serious  attempt

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

was  made  to  substantiate this averment,  or  to  show  it advances their case. On  November  20,  1964, the Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No. 3099 raising the age of  superannuation to 58 years subject to medical fitness-and satisfactory work and  conduct  in respect of the  Head-Masters  and  teaching staff  in  Government service and also in  the  institutions under   the  Zilla  Parishads  and  Panchayat  Samitis   and Municipalities.  On June 28, 1966, the Education  Department of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No. 1596 raising the  age of retirement to 60 years subject to certain conditions.  On August   26,  1966,  a  clarification  was  issued   whereby extension of service upto 60 years was stated to be  subject to  only two conditions, namely, medical fitness and  satis- factory   work  and  conduct.   On  November  3,  1967   the Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh issued G. O.  Ms.  No.  2219 cancelling  with effect from November 30, 1967, the  earlier Government  orders  extending  the  age  of  retirement   of teachers, first from 55 to 58 and then from 58 to 60  years. This  order also contained a direction for  making  suitable rules  under  the Panchayat Samitis and  Municipalities  Act separately,  by  the Panchayat Raj and Health,  Housing  and Municipal Administration Departments so as to give effect to the Government’s decision.  It was however provided in  this order that the teachers affected thereby would be  continued in  service  till the end of the academic  year  1967-68  in order  to  ensure continuity in the academic  teaching.   On November  16, 1967, new r. 16 was substituted for old r.  16 by means of which the age of superannuation of officers  and servants of Panchayat Samits and Zilla Parishads was reduced to  55  years.   On  November  20,  1967,  new  r.  14   was substituted  for  the  old r.  14,  similarly  reducing  the retirement  age to 55 years, in respect of the employees  of the  establishments under the Municipalities.  On March  14, 1968,  Fundamental Rules 56(a) was amended by  the  Governor under  Art. 309 of the Constitution by adding to it Note  2, according to which a government servant retained in  service after the date of compulsory retirement could be retired  at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. 745 It  appears  that  some teachers,  other  than  the  present petitioners,  feeling aggrieved by these  orders  approached the  Andhra Pradesh High Court for relief under Art. 226  of the  Constitution.  On April 16, 1968, Chinnappa Reddy,  J., allowed those writ petitions and directed the Andhra Pradesh Government  not to give ,effect to G. O. Ms. No. 2219  dated November 3, 1967, and the amendment to the Fundamental  Rule and  the  Rules  under  the  Municipalities  Act,  Panchayat Samitis  and Zilla Parishads Act, insofar as  they  affected the  rights of the petitioners in those petitions.   Another batch of teachers employed by the Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis  and  the  Municipalities, other  than  the  present petitioners,  along with a few teachers employed by  private establishments  also applied to that High Court  under  Art. 226 of the Constitution with similar grievance.  Those  writ petitions  were  disposed of by the same  learned  Judge  on August  7,  1968.  The State in those cases  tried,  without success,  to get over the ;earlier judgment in the  case  of the teachers by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in  B. S. Vadera v. Union of ’India & Ors.(1)  which  upheld the validity of retrospective operation of Rules made  under Art. 309 of the Constitution. On  appeal from the earlier judgment of the  learned  Single Judge, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court  on April 14, 1969, agreed with the single bench in holding that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

the  ,cancellation  of the extension of the service  of  the writ petitioners by the impugned orders was inoperative.  In the  meantime, in pursuance of the judgment of  the  learned Single Judge the Government had on November 8, 1968,  issued a Government Memo providing as under               "1. Teachers employed by Municipalities, Zilla               Parishad and Panchayat Samithis.               (a)Teachers   whose  services   have   been               extended up to the age of 60 years by specific               individual   orders  should  be  retained   in               service until they attain that age.               (b)Teachers  who  attained the  age  of  55               years  before 30-11-1967 and in  whose  favour               there are specific individual orders extending               their  services  up  to 58  years  ,should  be               retained in service until they attain the  age               of  58 years, and thereafter their  cases  for               further  extension up to the age of  60  years               should   be   considered  by   the   competent               authorities  in accordance with the G. O.  Ms.               3099  Edn. dated 20-11-1964 and G. O. Ms.  No.               1596 Edn. dated 28-6-1966. (1)  W.P.No.  96 of 1967 decided on March  27,  1958,  since reported as [1968] 3 S.C.R. 575. 746               (C)The  cases of teachers who attained  the               age of 55 years before 30-11-1967 but in whose               favour  there  are  no  specific   individual,               orders  of  extension of  service.  should  be               considered  by  the competent  authorities  in               accordance with G. O. Ms. No. 3099 Edn.  dated               20-11-64 and G. O. Ms. No. 1596 Edn. dated 28-               6-1966..               (d)Teachers  who  attained the  age  of  55               years  after 30-11-1967 should be  dealt  with               under G. O. Ms. No.. 2219, Education dt. 3-11-               1967  and they should be retired on  attaining               the  age  of 55 years.  Any such  person  con-               tinued in service after attaining 55 years  as               a  result  of  the High  Court’s  stay  orders               should be considered as on extension and their               extension terminated immediately." On  March 17, 1969, the Government issued a Memorandum  (No. 5929/HI/68)  directing all the Block Development  Officers,. Secretaries of Zilla Parishads and Secretaries of  Municipal Councils not to oust the teachers who had attained 55  years of  age before November 30, 1967, merely because there  were no  extension orders in their favour.  This Memorandum  also desired that proposals for extension of service of  teachers be  promptly forwarded to the District Educational  Officers concerned without. delay. On  June  17, 1969, r. 16(2) of the Rules  relating  to  the establishments   under  the  Panchayat  Samitis  and   Zilla Parishads was amended. so as to bring it in conformity  with the decision arrived at pursuant to the judgment of the High Court. The  petitioners before us are feeling aggrieved by cl.  (d) of  the Memorandum issued by the Government on  November  8, 1968,  and  it is this clause which is the  main  target  of challenge. on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. Sarjoo Prasad who led the attack on behalf of the  peti- tioners and addressed us in support of Writ Petition No. 217 of 1970 categorized his challenge under three heads :               (1)that  the  classification  made  by  the               Government order fixing November 30, 1967,  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

             the  date  for determining as  to  who  should               retire  at  the  age of  55  years  and  whose               service  should be extended is  arbitrary  and               highly discriminatory;               (2)that the Government order dated November               3.  1967  can  only  affect  persons   joining               service after that date andnot  those  who               were already in service because their  service               conditions  could not be unilaterally  changed               to their prejudice; and               747               (3)that Government is estopped to vary  the               date of retirement of the petitioners  because               they   had  on  the  faith  of  the   modified               conditions  of  their service  arranged  their               affairs  on the basis of their  retirement  at               the  age of 60 years.  By way of  illustration               it was pointed that their contributions to the               provident   fund  and  their  life   insurance               policies  had been so planned as  to  suitably               fit in with their retirement at the completion               of 60 years. We did not permit Mr. Sarjoo Prasad to raise points Nos. (2) & (3) because they did not pertain to any fundamental  right of the petitioners.  In so far as point No. (1) is concerned the learned counsel concentrated on the contention that  the classification  based on November 30, 1967 as  the  dividing tine for determining the age of retirement was arbitrary and highly  discriminatory, and it denied to the petitioners  on irrational  grounds  equal opportunity with  those  employed along  with  them.   The Government  Order  No.  2219  dated November  3,  1967,  which  cancelled  the  earlier   orders extending the age of retirement reads as under :               "G.  O.  Ms. No. 2219 Edn.   Dated  3rd  Nov.,               1967. Reading the following :-               1.    G.  O.  Ms.  No.  3099  Education  dated               22-11-1964               2.    G. O. Ms. No. 1596 Education dated 28-6-               1966. and               3.Memo  No. 8553-H. 1/66-1-1  Education  dated               26-8-1966                            ORDER The  Government hereby direct that the orders  contained  in the Government Orders first and second read above, as subse- quently amended, extending the age of retirement of teachers from  55  to 58 and from 58 to 60 years  be  cancelled  with effect  from 30th November 1967.  Suitable rules  under  the Panchayat and Municipalities Act will be made separately  by the   Panchayat  Raj  and  Health,  Housing  and   Municipal Administration  Departments  to  give effect  to  the  above decision.               (2)The  teachers  who are affected  by  the               orders  in  para  1  above,  will  however  be               continued  in  service  till the  end  of  the               academic  year  1967-68  in  order  to  ensure               continuity in the academic teaching." On  behalf  of  the  respondents  justification  for   first increasing  the age of compulsory retirement to 58 and  then to 60 years and 748 later  restoring  it to 55 years is stated in  the  counter- affidavit in the following words               ".....................the   G.  O.   did   not               contemplate any classification for it fixed  a               uniform  date for retirement of teachers,  who

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

             have completed 55 years but who got  extension               of  the  period of service, even  before  they               attained  their  60th  year.  It  is  only  in               compliance with the order of the Hon’ble  High               Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 164-1968 in Writ               Petitions Nos. 3105 of 1967, etc. holding that               teachers whose term has already been  extended               up to their 60th year have got a vested  right               to  continue  till their 60th year  that  they               were   allowed  to  continue.   It   is   also               significant that the Writ Appeal preferred  by                             this respondent against the judgment w as  also               dismissed.   The writ petitions filed  by  the               teachers who did not complete their 55th  year               before   the  G.  O.  reducing  the   age   of               retirement  was passed were dismissed  by  the               same High Court in Judgment dated 7-8-1968  in               W. P. Nos. 1741 of 1968 etc.  As such even  if               there are some anomalies in the working out of               the  G.  O.  that will not  be  a  ground  for               striking out the G. O. as it treats alike  all               in  the  same category. x x x the  object  for               raising  the retirement age was to  solve  the               problem   of  dearth  of  qualified   teachers               because of the opening of new schools and  the               need  for the maximum utilisation  of  trained               intelligensia." It  is  further explained in the counter-affidavit  that  as soon  as the dearth of qualified teachers  disappeared,  the retirement  age  was again restored to 55  years.   In  this counter-affidavit it is also pointed out that "if the G.  O. is  struck  down,  it will mean ’extension  of  services  of thousands  of  teachers, when there is really  no  need  for them." After  a  faint  attempt to challenge the  validity  of  the Government  Order  No.  2219 dated  November  3,  1967,  the learned counsel expressly confined his challenge only to the subsequent orders made by the Government.  Now if G. O.  No. 2219  dated  November 3, 1967 is valid, then  obviously  the petitioners   have  to  retire  at  the  age  of  55   years notwithstanding the fact that after their initial employment their retirement age was raised by Government orders,  first from  55  to  58 years and then to 60  years  because  those intermediary  orders  had been cancelled by G. O.  No.  2219 before  they  became  operative  by  actually  retaining  in service  the present petitioners after their  superannuation under the earlier rules.  Merely because by some  subsequent orders  the  extended  date of retirement  was  accepted  in respect of those employees 749 in  whose  favour  either  specific  orders  had  been  made extending  their  age of retirement from 55 to 58 or  to  60 years,  or who had,’ after crossing the 55 years age  limit, been  actually retained in service pursuant to the  modified directions, notwithstanding that those directions were later cancelled,   would  not  by  itself  entitle   the   present petitioners  to  claim  similar extension in  their  age  of retirement  on  the basis of the equality rule  embodied  in Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution.  The other employees were given  benefit of the directions pursuant to the  orders  of the High Court which have since become final.  This  clearly provides  a  valid differentia and the  present  petitioners cannot claim to be equated with those employees who had been given such benefits.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

The  learned counsel contended that the case of the  present petitioners  is identical with that of the teachers who  had applied  to  the Andhra Pradesh High Court and  had  secured orders  in  their favour.  The present petitioners,  it  was argued, having also acquired a vested right by virtue of the Government  orders raising their retirement age to 60  years are  entitled to   claim from this Court similar  orders  as were made by the High Court in favour of the petitioners  in the  two writ petitions.  We do not think there is any  such fundamental  right possessed by the present  petitioners  as would  entitle them to claim similar relief from this  Court in the present proceedings.  The two categories of the  tea- chers  employed by the three local bodies are  distinct  and separate.   We are not concerned with the  question  whether the  High  Court  was  right  in  granting  relief  to   the petitioners in the two earlier cases, though the  respondent has  in the counter-affidavit questioned the correctness  of those  orders.   They became final and are  binding  on  the parties  to those proceedings.  The present petitioners  did not  secure  similar  orders and now  their  retirement  age having  been restored to the original limit of 55 years  the petitioners  cannot  claim the higher age limit.   No  doubt during a short period the increased age limit for retirement remained  in force.  But, as is rightly conceded by all  the counsel  for  the  various petitioners, it is  open  to  the Government  in  this case to reduce the  age  of  retirement without  exposing  such  reduction  to  any   constitutional infirmity. In  this  connection it may be pointed out that  the  Andhra Pradesh  High  Court also had by a subsequent  order  denied relief  to  some  of the teachers similarly  placed  as  the present    petitioners,   holding   their   case-   to    be distinguishable   from   that  of  the  teachers   who   had successfully  applied  for relief in the  earlier  two  writ petitions. The submission, that when the Government itself accepted the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court striking down  the Government order reducing the retirement age to 55 years, 750 then  the  earlier order increasing the age  of  compulsory retirement  must  automatically be held to  be  revived,  is unacceptable.   The Government, it is noteworthy,  made  the impugned  orders after the decision. of the  Andhra  Pradesh High  Court  with the object of giving the benefit  of  that decision  to all the employees whose cases were  covered  by the principal laid down by the High Court.  The case of  the present petitioners is quite different and is not covered by the rule laid down by the High Court. The  impugned Government order fixing November 30, 1967,  as the  date  for founding the classification of  teachers  who should  retire at the age of 55 years and those  who  should get  the benefit of the interim orders extending the age  of retirement  to  58 or 60 years cannot be  considered  to  be either  irrational, or unreasonable or having no nexus  with the   object  to  be  achieved  .by  reducing  the  age   of retirement.   The problem of unemployment in our country  is undoubtedly  a complex problem and opinions may  differ  how best to solve it.  But that would not raise any question  of fundamental  right with which alone we are concerned in  the present proceedings.  The position as stated in the counter- affidavit  in  the  case before  us,  however,  furnishes  a complete   answer  to  the  petitioner’s  contention.    The classification  made by the Government does not suffer  from any  infirmity as it is founded on rational nexus  with  the object to be achieved.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

Shri Chagla appearing in support of Writ Petition No. 249 of 1970  also  made attempt to challenge the  Government  Order dated  November 3, 1967.  But nothing new was urged and  the learned counsel had, with his usual candour, to concede that the  Government could lawfully reduce the age of  retirement without attracting constitutional infirmity. Dr. Singhvi appearing in support of Writ Petition No. 144 of 1970 drew our attention to Fundamental Rule 56(a) as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Government in 1965 and submitted  that according  to the amended sub-rule "the date  of  compulsory retirement  of a Government servant, whether ministerial  or nonministerial and in the last grade service is the date  on which  he  attains  to  the age of 55  years  and  60  years respectively".    According  to  the  learned  counsel   the petitioners  are non-ministerial government servants in  the last grade service and are, therefore, entitled to remain in service  till they attain 60 years of age.  This  submission appears to us to be inconsistent with the petitioners’  case as pleaded in the writ petitions.  In the writ petitions  it has  been  assumed  that according to the F.  R.  56(a)  the teachers  have ordinarily to retire at the age of 55  years. In  any event, whether or not the amended F. R. 56(a)  fixed the retirement age of nonministerial government servants  at 60 years, and whether or not 751 the  petitioners  are  covered by this  rule,  seems  to  be immaterial because it has not been shown that the  teachers employed   by  the  Municipalities,  Zilla   Parishads   and Panchayat Samitis are governed directly by this  Fundamental Rule.   The  submission that ,.the rule  applicable  to  the teachers  employed  by such bodies was .intended  to  be  in conformity  with the Fundamental Rule is of little avail  to the petitioners because those Rules could not be considered to   have   been  automatically  modified   as   result   of the  .amendment in F. R. 56(a) in 1965.  It is not  disputed that  there is no such modification in  the  Rules  which directly  govern such teachers.  The argument based  on  the amended  F. R. 56(a) is, therefore, of no assistance to  the petitioners. Dr.  Singhvi’s criticism that the position taken up  in  the counter-affidavit  that  the  rule  "last  come,  first  go" applies to the petitioners is unfounded also cannot  benefit the petitioners.  The petitioners have to retire at the  age of  55  years  because the benefit  under  the  intermediary directions,  which have since been cancelled, ,cannot  after cancellation be claimed by them under any provision of  law. This  contention is, therefore, also repelled.  Dr.  Singhvi referred  us  to  Bishun Narain Mishra  v.  State  of  Uttar Pradesh  and  Others(1);  State  of  Assam  and  others   v. Premadhar  Baruah  and  others(1);  and  to  an   unreported decision  of  this Court in The State of U. P. and  Anr.  v. Kishan  Chand Dhaune).  These decisions do not  advance  the petitioners’  case.  In Bishun Narain Mishra(1)  this  Court observed:               "Now  it  cannot be urged that  if  Government               decides to retain the services of some  public               servants  after the age of retirement it  must               retain  every  public  servant  for  the  same               length  of  time.   The  retention  of  public               servants   after  the  period  of   retirement               depends   upon   their  efficiency   and   the               exigencies  of  public  service,  and  in  the               present  case the difference in the period  of               retention has arisen on account of  exigencies               of public service."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

             In Premadhar Baruah(2) it was observed by this               Court               "As  we have already indicated paragraph 4  of               the  memorandum flowed from F. R. 56(a).   The               Government  could retain a Government  servant               beyond   the  age  of   superannuation.    The               Government has also the discretion to withdraw               such   retention   in  service   because   the               retention  does  not confer any right  on  the               Government servant." (1)  [1965] 1 S.C.R. 693. (2)  A.I.R. [1970] S.C. 1314. (3)  C.A. No. 1832 of 1968 decided on Dec. 12, 1968. 752 It is, not understood how those decisions are helpful to the counsel.   The  unreported  decision  had  to  deal  with  a different problem and nothing said in that judgment has been shown to assist the petitioners before us. In  the other writ petitions the counsel merely adopted  the arguments  raised by Mr. Sarjoo Prasad and Mr.  Chagla,  and therefore they do not call for any comment. In  the final result, all the writ petitions are  dismissed, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. V.P.S.                               Petitions dismissed. 753