Meghraj Urkudaji Tempe Vs. The State of Maharashtra
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5197 Of 1993.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.92 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay, in T.A. No. 328/91 in W.P.No. 1081 of 1989)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.92 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay, in T.A. No. 328/91 in W.P.No. 1081 of 1989)
Petitioner: Meghraj Urkudaji Tempe
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5197 Of 1993.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.92 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay, in T.A. No. 328/91 in W.P.No. 1081 of 1989)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.92 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay, in T.A. No. 328/91 in W.P.No. 1081 of 1989)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA & M. JAGANNADHA RAO
Date of Judgment: May 13, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, Mr. M.N. Shroff, Ms. Suvira Lal, Advocate with him for the Appellant.
Mr. I.G. Shah, Senior Advocate, Mr. D.M. Narogolkar, Advocate with him for the Respondent.
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1982
Rule 10(4)(a)(i) and circulars dated 1.9.83 and 12.5.86. Compulsory retirement – Circular dated 1.9.83 prescribing stan-dard as “not less than average” whereas, circular dated 12.5.86 prescribing the standard as ” not less than good,” for review before age of 50 years – Second review under the second circular after crossing the age of 50 years – Permissibility – Ordered that since a two Judges Bench in Suryakant Govind v. State of Maharashtra, has held that even if a case has not been reviewed before crossing the age of 50 years, said case can be reviewed even after crossing the age of 50 years under circular dated 12.5.86, it is thought fit, that the matter be decided by a larger Bench. Papers to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Jus-tice. (Paras 2,4)
Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1982
Rule 10(4)(a)(i) and circulars dated 1.9.83 and 12.5.86. Compulsory retirement – Circular dated 1.9.83 prescribing stan-dard as “not less than average” whereas, circular dated 12.5.86 prescribing the standard as ” not less than good,” for review before age of 50 years – Second review under the second circular after crossing the age of 50 years – Permissibility – Ordered that since a two Judges Bench in Suryakant Govind v. State of Maharashtra, has held that even if a case has not been reviewed before crossing the age of 50 years, said case can be reviewed even after crossing the age of 50 years under circular dated 12.5.86, it is thought fit, that the matter be decided by a larger Bench. Papers to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Jus-tice. (Paras 2,4)
Cases Reffered:
1.Suryakant Govind Oke v. State of Maharashtra (1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 420) (Para 2)
2.Union of India & Others v. Narsirmiya Ahmadmiya Chauhan (1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 537) (Para 3)
3.K. Chelliah v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India & Anoth-er (1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 82) (Para 3)
4.Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab = JT 1987 (1) SC 673 (Para 3)
5.State of U.P. v. Chandra Mohan Nigam (1978 (1) SCR 521) (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The appellant contends that the notice dated 23.1.89 for compulsory retirement issued under Rule 10(4)(a)(i) of the Mahar-ashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 is bad inasmuch as the procedure indicated in the Circular issued by the State Gov-ernment on 1.9.1983 has not been followed before the appellant crossed 50 years and his case must be deemed to have been re-viewed in his favour before he crossed 50 years. In such a situa-tion, a second review after he crossed 50 years is, according to the appellant, not permissible. It is also contended that it is not open to the respondent while issuing notice on 23.1.1989 to apply the norms prescribed in a later circular dated 12.5.1986. It is contended that while the 23.1.1983 Circular prescribes a standard of ‘not less than average’, the Circular dated 12.5.1986 prescribes a more stringent standard of ‘not less than good’. If review had been undertaken before the appellant crossed 50 years, then it would have been sufficient if the appellant satisfied the standard of not less than average’ – which, in fact, he did – as per the norms prescribed by the circular dated 1.9.1983. The contention of the appellant is that the circular dated 1.9.1983 is binding on the Government and is intended to see that the general power under Rule 10(4)(a)(i) is not used arbitrarily.
2. After hearing learned senior counsel on both sides, we were prima facie inclined to accept the above contention of the ap-pellant. But we have come to notice a two Judge Bench decision in Suryakant Govind Oke v. State of Maharashtra (1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 420) wherein it has held that even if an officer’s case has not been reviewed before he crossed 50 years, his case can be re-viewed under the circular dated 12.5.1986 read with Rule 10(4)(a)(i) of the Rules, and that this could be done even after he has crossed 50 years. We have, therefore, thought it fit that the case is to be decided by a three Judge Bench.
3. In this context, we are of the view that the decisions in Union of India & Others v. Narsirmiya Ahmadmiya Chauhan (1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 537), K. Chelliah v. Industrial Finance Corpora-tion of India & Another (1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 82) and in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab = JT 1987 (1) SC 673 decided by Benches of two Judges and also a decision of a three Judges Bench in State of U.P. v. Chandra Mohan Nigam (1978 (1) SCR 521)- all concerning the effect of Circulars/guidelines dealing with compulsory retirement- are also relevant.
4. We direct accordingly that the papers be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, for being listed before a Bench of three learned Judges.
1. The appellant contends that the notice dated 23.1.89 for compulsory retirement issued under Rule 10(4)(a)(i) of the Mahar-ashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 is bad inasmuch as the procedure indicated in the Circular issued by the State Gov-ernment on 1.9.1983 has not been followed before the appellant crossed 50 years and his case must be deemed to have been re-viewed in his favour before he crossed 50 years. In such a situa-tion, a second review after he crossed 50 years is, according to the appellant, not permissible. It is also contended that it is not open to the respondent while issuing notice on 23.1.1989 to apply the norms prescribed in a later circular dated 12.5.1986. It is contended that while the 23.1.1983 Circular prescribes a standard of ‘not less than average’, the Circular dated 12.5.1986 prescribes a more stringent standard of ‘not less than good’. If review had been undertaken before the appellant crossed 50 years, then it would have been sufficient if the appellant satisfied the standard of not less than average’ – which, in fact, he did – as per the norms prescribed by the circular dated 1.9.1983. The contention of the appellant is that the circular dated 1.9.1983 is binding on the Government and is intended to see that the general power under Rule 10(4)(a)(i) is not used arbitrarily.
2. After hearing learned senior counsel on both sides, we were prima facie inclined to accept the above contention of the ap-pellant. But we have come to notice a two Judge Bench decision in Suryakant Govind Oke v. State of Maharashtra (1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 420) wherein it has held that even if an officer’s case has not been reviewed before he crossed 50 years, his case can be re-viewed under the circular dated 12.5.1986 read with Rule 10(4)(a)(i) of the Rules, and that this could be done even after he has crossed 50 years. We have, therefore, thought it fit that the case is to be decided by a three Judge Bench.
3. In this context, we are of the view that the decisions in Union of India & Others v. Narsirmiya Ahmadmiya Chauhan (1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 537), K. Chelliah v. Industrial Finance Corpora-tion of India & Another (1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 82) and in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab = JT 1987 (1) SC 673 decided by Benches of two Judges and also a decision of a three Judges Bench in State of U.P. v. Chandra Mohan Nigam (1978 (1) SCR 521)- all concerning the effect of Circulars/guidelines dealing with compulsory retirement- are also relevant.
4. We direct accordingly that the papers be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, for being listed before a Bench of three learned Judges.
