M.P. Pradhan v. Union of India & Ors.

KULD1P SINGH, J. The question for our consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is governed by Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i) and as such entitled to superannuation at the age of 60 years. F..undamental Rule 56(c)(i) is reproduced as under: "(c) A ministerial Government servant who entered Government service on or before the 31st March, 1958 and held on that date: (i) a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent post, or ... shall retire from service on the afternoon of the 1st day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years." The appellant joined service as paid apprentice in the Collecto.rate of Etawah, Government of Uttar Pradesh on 1st July,.)937. On the same day he was asked to officiate in the post of Arranger. He was sent back to the post of paid apprentice on 24th December, 1937 but was again appointed as Arranger in officiating capacity on 3rd of January 1938. While holding the post of paid apprentice he had been appointed in various posts on officiating basis. He was finally promoted and appointed to a permanent post of Copyist in a substantive capacity on 1st of August, 1941. He came fo the Govenment of India on deputa- 412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] 1 S.C.R. A tion in March 1943 and thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years in February 1976. The appellant claimed that having entered Government service on permanent basis before 31st March, 1938 he was entitled to con­ tinue in service till the age of 60 years under Fundamental Rule 56 (c)(i) and his retirement on attaining the age of 58 years was illegal. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissed the application of the appellant holding that the appellant was only an apprentice under training prior to 1st of August, 1941 and as such was not holding any employment under the State on per­ manent basis. According to the Tribunal the appellant was appointed to the Government service on permanent basis to the post of Copyist on !st of August, 1941 and as such he did not come within the purview of Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i). We have examined the admitted entries in the service book of the appellant which are on the record. These entries show that the appellant joined service as JJaid apprentice on substantive permanent basis on 1st of July, 1937. It is correct that from 1st of July, 1937 upto !st of August, 1941 he has been shown in the service book to be appointed in officiating capacity to various posts but the fact remains that his basic appointment as paid apprentice was permanent. The finding of the Tribunal that the appellant was made permanent for the first time as Copyist on 1st August, 1941 cannot be accepted in the face of clear entries in the service book showing that he joined as paid apprentice on permanent basis on 1st of July, 1937. Joining as paid apprentice on permanent basis cannot be anything else but entering Government service on permanent basis and since the entry was before 31st March, 1938 Fundamental Rule 56(c)(i) is attracted and the appellant is entitled to remain in Government service till the age of 60 years. In the reply affidavit on behalf of the respondents in the court below, it-is staed as under: "The petitioner joined Government Service under the provincial Government of Uttar Pradesh on 1. 7 .1937 against a post of paid apprentice. It appears there were a few permanent posts of paid apprentice under the State Government. Petitioner was appointed against one of them in Collectorate, Etawah." I M.P. PRADHAN v. U.0.1 !KULDIP SINGH, J] 413 The respondents repeated their stand in the counter filed by A them in this Court in the following terms: "It is submitted that tbe petitioner joined Govern­ ment service under the Provincial Government of Uttar Pradesh on 1. 7 .1937 against a post of "Paid Apprentice". It appear that there were a few permanent posts of paid B apprentice under the State Government. The petitioner was appointed against one of them in the Collectorate, Etawah." We are, therefore, of the view.that the Tribun.al erred in denying the benefit of Fundamental Rule 56 (c)(i) to the appellant. We allow c the appeal with costs and set aside tbe judgment of tbe Central Administrative Tribunal under appeal and we hold that the appellant was entitled to continue in Government service till he attained the age of 60 years. The appellant has already completed 60 years and as such he be paid two years emoluments with all consequential benefits including any enhancement in the fixation of pension and other post D retirement benefits. We quantify the costs as Rs.3,000. G.N. Appeal allowed.