BATAHARI JENA versus STATE OF ORISSA

BATAHARI JENA versus STATE OF ORISSA

Government of Orissa’s resolution of May 21, 1963 raised the age of superannuation from 55 to 58 but retained the right to require retirement at age 55 without assigning reasons, in addition to the right under the Liberalised Pension Rules to retire after 30 years' service; neither rule was unreasonably short, nor was any stigma cast by the retirement order, so Article 311(2) was not violated.

Parties
Appellant: Batahri Jena; Respondent: State of Orissa
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 April 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court Judgment in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 208 of 1964
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Retirement, Superannuation, Liberalised Pension Rules, Article 311 of the Constitution
Constitutional Law Service Law Compulsory Retirement Superannuation Liberalised Pension Rules Article 311 of the Constitution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Batahri Jena

Appellant

State of Orissa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court Judgment in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 208 of 1964

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant could be compulsorily retired at age 55 without completing 30 years' qualifying service under the Liberalised Pension Rules
  2. 2 Whether the retirement order at age 55 casts a stigma or violates Article 311(2) of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Government of Orissa’s resolution of May 21, 1963 raised the age of superannuation from 55 to 58 but retained the right to require retirement at age 55 without assigning reasons, in addition to the right under the Liberalised Pension Rules to retire after 30 years' service; neither rule was unreasonably short, nor was any stigma cast by the retirement order, so Article 311(2) was not violated.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • No violation of Article 311(2) found.