I. N. SAKSENA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

I. N. SAKSENA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

As the order of compulsory retirement contained no express words casting stigma, it did not amount to removal, Article 311 was not attracted; the memorandum of February 28, 1963 constituted executive instructions and was not a rule under Article 309; the only rule made was by notification of December 6, 1963, which raised retirement age but omitted the power to retire on three months' notice; therefore, the retirement notice issued to the appellant must fall; Rule 7(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1955 only applies to rules existing at its commencement and does not incorporate subsequent amendments, so All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 as...

Parties
Appellant: Saksena; Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 January 1967
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated April 30, 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 132 of 1964
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Retirement, Stigma in Service Orders, Executive Instructions Vs Rules, Applicability of Retirement Benefit Rules
Constitutional Law Service Law Compulsory Retirement Stigma in Service Orders Executive Instructions Vs Rules Applicability of Retirement Benefit Rules

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saksena

Appellant

State of Madhya Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated April 30, 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 132 of 1964

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the order of compulsory retirement cast a stigma, thus engaging Article 311 of the Constitution?
  2. 2 Is the State Government memorandum of February 28, 1963 a rule under Article 309 of the Constitution?
  3. 3 If the memorandum is not a rule, was the appellant required to retire in August 1963?

Ratio Decidendi

As the order of compulsory retirement contained no express words casting stigma, it did not amount to removal, Article 311 was not attracted; the memorandum of February 28, 1963 constituted executive instructions and was not a rule under Article 309; the only rule made was by notification of December 6, 1963, which raised retirement age but omitted the power to retire on three months' notice; therefore, the retirement notice issued to the appellant must fall; Rule 7(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1955 only applies to rules existing at its commencement and does not incorporate subsequent amendments, so All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 as...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of retirement passed is quashed.
  • Appellant is deemed to have continued in service despite the retirement order.