http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: P. RADHAKRISHNA NAIDU & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/12/1976

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1977 AIR  854            1977 SCR  (2) 365  1977 SCC  (1) 561

ACT:             Constitution of India, Articles 16, 32 and 311,  Govern-         ment servant’s compulsory retirement, whether violates  Art.         16--Ban  on  re-employment by  semiGovernment  Institutions,         whether within the scope of Art. 32--Availability of  alter-         native remedy.

HEADNOTE:             On the completion of their 25 years of qualifying  serv-         ice,  the  appellants were compulsorily  retired  in  public         interest,  and  were to receive 3 months salary in  lieu  of         notice.   Thereafter,  the respondent  Government  passed  a         general  order  forbidding  re-employment  of   compulsorily         retired  persons  in   semi-Government  institutions.    The         appellants  filed, writ petitions under Art. 32 of the  Con-         stitution  challenging the compulsory retirement  orders  as         violative of Art. 16 and the ban on such re-employment as  a         stigma under Art. 311.         Dismissing the petitions, the Court,             HELD: (1) Article 16 does not prohibit the  prescription         of  reasonable rules for compulsory retirement.  The  provi-         sion for compulsory retirement in public interest after  the         completion  of  a certain period of  qualifying  service  or         attainment  of  a  certain age, applies  to  all  Government         servants  and  as such it is not open  to  challenge  either         under Art. 14 or under Art. 16, and the individual  applica-         tion  of  the order in a given case cannot offend  Art.  16.         [367-D-H]         T. C. Shivacharana Singh V. State of Mysore A.I.R. 1965 S.C.         280, applied.             Union  of  India  v. Col. J.N. Sinha, &  Anr.  [1971]  1         S.C.R.  791;  Tara Singh etc. v. State of Rajasthan  &  Ors.         [19753  3 S.C.R. 1002,  and  B.  Narayana Murthy &  Ors.  v.         State  of   Andhra  Pradesh etc. [1971]  Supp.  S.C.R.  741,         referred to.             (2) The Government order forbidding  re-appointment   of         compulsorily retired persons as a stigma within the  meaning         of Article 311 is not an infringement of fundamental rights,         and  the enforcement of violation of  Article  311 does  not         come within the scope of Article 32.  The ban is not against         anyone  individually  and has a reasonable  basis  and  some         relation to the suitability for employment or appointment to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

       an office.  [367A-B,369 A-B]             Krishna  Chander  Nayar  v.  Chairman,  Central  Tractor         Organisation & Ors. [1962] 3 S.C.R. 187; Shyam Lal v.  State         of  U.P. [1955] 1 S.C.R.  26;  Tata Engineering and  Locomo-         tive  Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner  of  Commercial         Taxes  & Anr. [1967] 2 S.C.R. 751 and Hukumchand Mills  Ltd.         v.  The State of Madhya Bharat & Anr. [1964] 6  S.C.R.  857,         referred to.             (3) The Government of Andhra Pradesh has by an  adminis-         trative   order  constituted  a review  committee  for  each         department to review orders of retirement it public interest         and to revoke and modify the same, if necessary. petitioners         made  representations to the review committee, and  are  not         justified in applying to this Court.  [370A-B]

JUDGMENT:         ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 97 of 1976.         (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).              S.  Ramchandra Rao and B. Kanta Rao for the  appellants         in W.P. No. 97/76.              S.  Ramachandra Rao and ,A. Subba Rao, for  the  appel-         lants in W.P. No. 114/76.         366              Niren De, Attorney General, P.p. Rao, Sr. Advocate  and         T.V.S.  Narasimhachari,  for  the respondents  in  W.P.  No.         97/76.              P.  Parmeshwara Rao, and G. Narayana Rao, for  respond-         ents  in W.P. No. 114/76.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by              RAY, C.J. These writ petitions challenge the compulsory         retirement of the petitioners.  The petitioners were retired         compulsorily under order dated 23 September, 1975.             The  order  dated 23 September 1975 in the case  of  the         first  petitioner  in writ petition No. 97 of  1976  may  be         referred to as typical of orders in the case of other  peti-         tioners.  This order stated first that the said first  peti-         tioner  completed  25 years of qualifying  service  on  24th         July, 1975.  The order next stated that the Commissioner  of         Police being the authority to make a substantive appointment         to the post of Inspector of Police is of opinion that it  is         in  public interest to retire the persons mentioned  in  the         order.             The  order  thereafter states that in  exercise  of  the         powers conferred by Clause (a) of sub-rule (2)/sub-rule 2(A)         read   with  Clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of rule 3   of   the         Andhra  Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961/sub-rule (1)         of  rule  2/rule 3 read with sub-rule (1) of rule 2  of  the         Andhra  Pradesh  Government  Servants  Premature  Retirement         Rules,  1975,  the Commissioner of Police directs  that  the         person mentioned in the order shall retire in public  inter-         est from service with effect from the date of service of the         order  and  that he shall be paid a sum  equivalent  to  the         amount  pay  and allowances for 3 months in lieu  of  notice         calculated at the same rate at which he was drawing  immedi-         ately before the date on which the order is served on him.             The Government of Andhra Pradesh passed a general  order         dated  28 November, 1975. In that  Government order  it   is         stated  that in several Government orders  recited  therein,         orders for the premature retirement of the Government  serv-         ants in public interest had been issued in those cases after         giving 3 months previous notice in writing or after giving 3         months salary in lieu of such notice.  The 28 November, 1975         order next states that an instance came to the notice of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

       Government  that a Government servant after  compulsory  re-         tirement as per orders mentioned above was re-appointed   in         a  cooperative institution as  executive  officer.    Though         the  reappointment of the incumbent was in the  Semi-Govern-         ment Institution, his re-appointment was stated to be irreg-         ular  and  contrary  to  the intention of the Government  in         retiring corrupt and  inefficient  persons.  The  Government         order directed that all the Departments of the  Secretariat,         all  Heads  of Department, and all Collectors  etc.,  should         ensure that on no account persons who are retired premature-         ly in pursuance of orders issued by the Government should be         re-instated  or re-appointed  in  any   Semi-Government   or         Quasi-Government Institutions.         367             The  petitioners  challenged the  compulsory  retirement         orders  as  violation of Article 16.  The  petitioners  also         challenged the Government order forbidding re-appointment of         compulsorily  retired persons in Semi-Government  or  Quasi-         Government  Institutions as a  stigma within the meaning  of         Article 311.             At  the outset it should be stated that  enforcement  of         violation  of Article 311 does not come within the scope  of         Article 32.  The challenge to the Government order   forbid-         ding   re-appointment  of compulsorily retired persons as  a         stigma within the meaning of Article 311 is, therefore,  not         an infringement of fundamental rights.             The  petitioners  challenged the  orders  of  compulsory         retirement as an infraction 0f Article 16.  It is not  known         how  the petitioners have been discriminated  against  other         persons because no such person is impleaded as a  respondent         and there are no allegations to that effect.             During the subsistence of the Presidential Order  issued         under Article 359(1 ) it is not competent to invoke  Article         14  for enforcement of any fundamental rights.  Articles  14         and  16 are  to  a certain extent overlapping in  regard  to         rights of equality.             Equality  of  opportunity for all  citizens  in  matters         relating  to  employment is not violated by  provisions  for         compulsory  retirement  of  Government  servants  in  public         interest after the completion  of a certain period of quali-         fying service or attainment of a certain age. This Court has         consistently taken the view that compulsory retirement  does         not involve any civil consequences.   See Union of India  v.         Col. J. N. Sinha and Another(1) and Tara Singh etc. v. State         of Rajasthan and Ors.(3)             A  writ petition under Article 32 can lie only  for  in-         fringement of fundamental  rights.  See  B. Narayana  Murthy         and  Ors.  etc.   v. State of Andhra  Pradesh  etc.(3)   The         general order for compulsory retirement is applicable to all         employees.  The  individual application of the  order  in  a         given case cannot offend Article 16.  It cannot be suggested         that  an order for compulsory retirement in the case of  one         person  is  denial of equality of  opportunity  relating  to         employment because another person in employment has not been         compulsorily retired.             Article 16 does not prohibit the prescription of reason-         able  rules for compulsory retirement.  A question arose  in         T.C.  Shivacharana  Singh v. State of Mysore (4)  whether  a         rule  providing  for compulsory  premature  retirement  from         Government service violates Article 16. This Court said that         the  law  in relation to the validity  of  rules  permitting         compulsory premature retirement from Government ser-         (1) [1971] 1 S.C.R. 791.        (2) [1975] 3 S.C.R. 1002.         (3) [1971] Supp S.C.R. 741.     (4) A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 280.         368

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

       vice  is well-settled by prior decision of this Court  which         does not require to be reconsidered.  The ratio is that  the         provision  for  compulsory  retirement  in  public  interest         applies  to  all Government servants and as such it  is  not         open  to challenge either under Article 14 or under  Article         16.             In Shyam Lal v. Stale of U.P.(1) the appellant had  been         compulsorily retired.  The order was challenged as violating         Article  311.  This Court held that there is no  stigma  in-         volved   in  compulsory retirement.   Compulsory  retirement         does not amount to a dismissal or removal and, therefore, it         is not within the vice of Article 311.             One of the petitioners, namely, the first in writ  peti-         tion  No.  97 of 1976, challenged the  order  of  compulsory         retirement  on the ground that he did not complete 25  years         of  service.  He alleged  that  he was appointed on 10  Sep-         tember, 1952 and, therefore, the order of compulsory retire-         ment  dated  23 September, 1975 is bad.  The  State  on  the         other hand contends that the correct date of appointment  of         the  first petitioner is 25 July, 1950.  In  writ  petitions         the Court does not go into disputed questions of fact,  like         date  of appointment as in the present case.  In Tata  Engi-         neering and Locomotive Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commission-         er  of Commercial Taxes & Anr. (a) this Court said that  the         exercise of jurisdiction in writ matters is not desirable if         facts  have to be found on evidence.  This Court   has  also         said  that there may be exceptions.  One such  exception  is         when  action  is taken under an invalid law  or  arbitrarily         without  the sanction of law.  In the present case there  is         no aspect  of  either kind.             Further  it has to be observed that in the present  writ         petitions several petitioners have combined as  petitioners.         Their  causes of action are separate and independent.   Each         is  alleged  to be  an instance of individual  assertion  of         constitutional right in regard to facts and circumstances of         each  case.  Where several petitioners combine  for  alleged         violation  of their rights, it is difficult for court to  go         into  each and every individual case.  In the  present  case         the  affidavit evidence on behalf of the State is  preferred         and,  therefore,  the first petitioner  cannot  agitate  the         question of disputed date of appointment.             In  Krishna Chandra Nayar v. Chairman,  Central  Tractor         Organization and Others(3) this Court considered the imposi-         tion  of  a ban against one man, namely, the  petitioner  in         that case from being ever taken into Government service.  He         was a temporary servant and his services were terminated  by         giving  him  pay and allowances in lieu of  notice  for  one         month.   This Court found that case to be one  of  arbitrary         imposition of ban against the employment or appointment  one         individual to an office.          (1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 26.          (2) [1967] 2 S.C.R. 751.          (3) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 187.         369             Krishna  Chander’s  case  (supra) is of no  aid  to  the         petitioners in the present case.  The ban is not  challenged         here.  In  Krishna Chander’s case (supra) the ban was  chal-         lenged  as an arbitrary act against one individual.  In  the         present case the ban is not  against anyone individually but         it  is  not to employ in Quasi-Government service  or  Semi-         Government  service,  persons who are  compulsorily  retired         from Government service.  The ban has a reasonable basis and         has  some  relation  to the suitability  for  employment  or         appointment  to  an office.  When compulsory  retirement  is         made in public interest it will be an exercise in   futility         if   Government  servants who are compulsorily  retired  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

       again  employed  in Government  service  or  Semi-Government         service or Quasi-Government service.             The  petitioners  challenged the orders  for  compulsory         retirement  also  on the ground that reference  to  so  many         rules  was made and, therefore, it was not possible for  the         petitioners  to  know under what provision  the  orders  for         compulsory retirement had been made.  It is not open to  the         petitioners  to  challenge the orders on  that  ground.  The         orders  specifically mention that compulsory  retirement  is         made  in public interest.  The State affidavit evidence   is         that   petitioners  No. 4 and 5 in writ petition No.  97  of         1976 are governed by Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations and         the  rest of the petitioners are governed by Andhra  Pradesh         Liberalised  Pension Rules, 1961. Rule 292 of the  Hyderabad         Civil Service Regulations and sub-rule (2) (a) of rule B  of         the  Andhra  Pradesh  Liberalised Pension  Rules,  1961  are         similar.   Both the rules confer power on the  authority  to         require Government servant to retire in the public  interest         from  service on the date on which he completes 25 years  of         qualifying service or attains 50 years of age.  Rule 2(1) of         the Andhra Pradesh Government Servants’ Premature Retirement         Rules, 1975  is also worded in similar language.  The  word-         ing of the  rules  relating to retirement in public interest         is identical in all the three sets of rules mentioned above.             The mere fact that three different rules. were mentioned         in  the impugned orders without scoring out the rules  which         are not applicable to a petitioner in one case cannot be any         grievance for the reason that in each case the relevant rule         is  identically  worded.  The omission on the  part  of  the         officers competent to retire the petitioners in not  scoring         out  the  rules  which are inapplicable  to   a   particular         individual  does  not render the order bad.  The  reason  is         that one of the rules is applicable to him and the  omission         to strike out the rules which are not applicable will not in         any  manner affect the applicability of the rule  mentioned.         Further this Court has taken the view that a wrong reference         to power will not vitiate any action if it can be  justified         under  some other power under which the Government can  law-         fully do the act.  See Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. The State of         Madhya Bharat and Another(1). In the present case the  valid         rule is mentioned in each case.         (1) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 857.         370             The Government of Andhra Pradesh has by  an  administra-         tive  order constituted a review committee for each  depart-         ment  to review orders of retirement in public interest  and         to revoke and modify the same, if necessary.  The  petition-         ers  made  representations  to the  review  committee.   The         petitioners yet choose to come to this court.  The petition-         ers are not justified in applying to this court.             The  petitioners  obtained  rules  in  these  two  cases         during  the  vacation.  A similar matter  came  before  this         Court  on  29 April, 1976 and this Court did not  issue  any         rule.  If the attention of this Court had been drawn to that         order,  perhaps  no  rule would have been  issued  in  these         matters.             The  Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Order,  1975         confers power on the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction  with         respect  to  appointment, allotment or promotion  and  other         conditions  of  service of such persons.  It is  open  to  a         person who complains about an order of compulsory retirement         to approach the Tribunal in a given case.             For  the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are  dis-         missed.  There will be no order as to costs.         M.R.                                               Petitions

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

       dismissed.         371