http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: GYAN CHAND

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/12/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7) 184        JT 1995 (9)   222  1995 SCALE  (7)302

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      The only  relevant question for decision is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of proviso to Rule 1802 of the Railway Establishment Code. This Court on 24th April, 1995 passed the following order:      "Issue Notice.  Limited to  the question      as to  why  the  proviso  to  Rule  1802      should not be applied to the petitioner,      namely, Gyan  Chand while  is continuing      in officiating  Group ’B’  post, if  the      authority intends  to  take  action  for      retiring the officer in public interest,      he would  be entitled to be informed and      if opted for reverted to the substantive      Group ’C’  post. In  this case, the said      action has  not been done. Therefore the      respondents are at liberty to show cause      why the proviso should not be applied to      the petitioner and direction be given to      make the order in terms thereof."      Pursuant thereto,  the counter-affidavit has been filed by the  respondents. Therein,  the Rule  has been  extracted which states thus:      "Notwithstanding anything  contained  in      this  Rule,   the  appointing  authority      shall, if  it is  of the opinion that it      is in the public interest to do so, have      the absolute right to retire any railway      servant by giving him notice of not less      than 3 months in writing or 3 months pay      and allowances  in lieu  of such notice-      (i) if  he is  in Group  ’A’ service  or      post or  in a  Group ’C’ service or post      in   a    substantive    capacity    but

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

    officiating in  a Group ’A’ or Group ’B’      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. (ii) in      any other  case, after  he has  attained      the age  of fifty  five years:  Provided      that a  railway servant  who is in Group      ’C’ post  or service  in  a  substantive      capacity, but  is holding a Group ’A’ or      ’B’ post  or service  in an  officiating      capacity shall, in case it is decided to      retire him  from the  Group ’A’ or Group      ’B’  post   of  service  in  the  public      interest, be  allowed on  his request in      writing, to  continue in  service in the      Group ’C’ post or service which he holds      in a substantive capacity."      It is  not in  dispute that  on promotion  to Group ’B’ service of  Mechanical Department  the  appellant  continued till 3rd  March, 1985  and thereafter  in senior  scale from march 4,  1985 to  July 3,  1989. It  is contended  for  the appellant  that  in  view  of  the  admitted  fact  that  no confirmation  of   probation  was  made  till  date  of  his compulsory retirement, he must be deemed to be continuing on probation and  that, therefore he is entitled to the benefit of the  proviso. We  find it difficult to give acceptance to the contention.      The proviso  clearly indicates  that a  railway servant who is  in Group  ’C’  post  or  service  in  a  substantive capacity, but  is holding  a Group ’A’ or ’B’service of post in an  officiating capacity,  shall in  case  of  compulsory retirement, be allowed on his request in writing to continue in  Group   ’C’  post  or  service,  which  he  holds  in  a substantive capacity.  It is  seen that  in view of the fact that the  appellant continued  in Group ’B’ post not only in ordinary scale  but also in senior scale of pay till July 3, 1989, for  10 years to the date on which he was compulsorily retired, it  could not  be said  that he  continued only  on officiating basis  for 10 years. It would be obvious that he continued in  substantive capacity  as Group ’B’ officer. He could not simultaneously continued in Group ’C’ service in a substantive  capacity.   Therefore,  the   proviso  has   no application to the facts of this case.      Under these  circumstances, it  cannot be said that the order of  retirement made  in respect  of the  appellant  is vitiated by any error of law warranting our interference.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 3763