GOPAL PRASAD versus BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD AND OTHERS

GOPAL PRASAD versus BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD AND OTHERS

There is a difference of opinion: per Ajay Rastogi, J., read together the Pension Rules (qualifying age 18) and Rule 73 yield that a government servant who entered service before attaining 18 cannot be continued beyond the logical maximum qualifying service (42 years) and may be superannuated accordingly; per Indira Banerjee, J., retirement can only occur on attainment of the prescribed age in Rule 73 and length of service is not a criterion for compulsory retirement in the absence of an express rule, so an employee could not be made to retire before attaining the statutory age. Because of the conflicting views, the matter was referred to a larger Bench.

Parties
Appellant: Gopal Prasad; Respondent: Bihar School Examination Board and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 8225 of 2012 / Appeal From Judgment of Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna Dated 03.08.2012
Outcome
Matter referred to a larger Bench due to a difference of opinion between the two Judges on whether length of service can be a ground for compulsory retirement where Rule 73 prescribes age
Legal Topics
Superannuation, Retirement Age, Qualifying Service for Pension, Appointment of Minors, Rule Interpretation, Pension Computation
Service Law Pension Law Contract Law Administrative Law Superannuation Retirement Age Qualifying Service for Pension Appointment of Minors +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gopal Prasad

Appellant

Bihar School Examination Board and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 8225 of 2012 / Appeal From Judgment of Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna Dated 03.08.2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person can be superannuated prior to attaining the prescribed age of retirement merely because he has completed the maximum qualifying service (e.g. 42 years)
  2. 2 Whether a Board resolution or administrative order can effectively alter or curtail the date of retirement prescribed by Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952
  3. 3 Whether appointments of persons who were minors at the time of appointment can be treated so as to permit earlier superannuation by deeming age at entry as 18 for retirement purposes

Ratio Decidendi

There is a difference of opinion: per Ajay Rastogi, J., read together the Pension Rules (qualifying age 18) and Rule 73 yield that a government servant who entered service before attaining 18 cannot be continued beyond the logical maximum qualifying service (42 years) and may be superannuated accordingly; per Indira Banerjee, J., retirement can only occur on attainment of the prescribed age in Rule 73 and length of service is not a criterion for compulsory retirement in the absence of an express rule, so an employee could not be made to retire before attaining the statutory age. Because of the conflicting views, the matter was referred to a larger Bench.

Court Disposition

Matter referred to a larger Bench due to a difference of opinion between the two Judges on whether length of service can be a ground for compulsory retirement where Rule 73 prescribes age

Orders

  • Per Rastogi, J.: appeal dismissed (employee held properly superannuated on completion of qualifying service as applied); per Indira Banerjee, J.: appeal should be allowed and employee entitled to continue until attaining age of 60 years (18.11.2014) with consequential benefits; matter referred to larger Bench