RULE 56J of FUNDAMENTAL RULES
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, when the CWP No.19822 of 1983 was decided on 19.9.1983, in re: SUNDER GROVER vs UNION OF INDIA it was observed as follows:-
QUOTE: Now Fundamental Rule 56(j) porivdes that if the appropriate authority is of the opinion that it is in public interest so to do, have absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowance in lieu of that notice. This power thus permits the government to compulsorily retire an employee at the age of 50 years before reaching the normal age of superannuationat 58 yeas. One would, at first, blush think that this action of compulsory retirement which will affect an employee so seriously by throwing him out of employment somany years in advance with obvious loss in earning, status, material as well as financial should at least attract natural justice and require a hearing to be given to him before taking any action. And this is what a Division Bench of this Court as held in 1970 SLR 213. But this view was not approved by the Supreme Court in AIR 1971 SC 40. The Supreme Court though it recognised the essential sweep of the natural justice and also recognising that the compulsory retirementof an officer is bound to have some adverse effect on the employee compulsorily retired yet held that it involved no civil consequence nor is such a rule intended to take any penal action against the government servant. Reversing the reasoning for the applicability of principles of natural justice it said that in our opinion the High Court erred in thinking that the compulsory retirement involveds civil consequences. Such a retirement does not take away any of the rights that have accrued to the Government servant because of his past service. Thus the broad argument put forth by Mr. Sorabjee that in every case even in the case of temporary employee and in case of reversion without any stigma demand of principles of natural justice requires hearing to be given must be rejected. If the case of compulsory retirement of government servant who has the normal expectation of remaining in service upto 58 years principles of natural justice and hearing are not attracted, it is impossible to accept the argument that opportunity of being heard was necessary to be given to the petitioner, when he was only being reverted to his old post, and apparently in accordance with the conditions and terms of his appointment. No invalidity can therefore attach to the impugned order merely on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before making the order of reversion. UNQUOTE
[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_1983_hc_del_cwp_1922]
HIGH COURT ORDERS
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
