STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. versus KAILASH CHAND MAHAJAN AND ORS.

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. versus KAILASH CHAND MAHAJAN AND ORS.

The legislature is competent to prescribe a superannuation age for Electricity Board Members by way of policy. The amendment applied generally and did not constitute arbitrary or discriminatory 'single person legislation.' The cessation of office upon attaining 65 years was automatic under the law, and there was no violation of Articles 14, 16, or 21. Failure to implead the successor was not fatal as no relief was sought against him.

Parties
Appellant: State of Himachal Pradesh and Another; Respondents: Kailash Chand Mahajan and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (by Special Leave) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Legislative Competence, Retirement Age Policy, Disqualification for Public Office, Natural Justice, Single Person Legislation, Repugnancy, Equality Under Article 14
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Electricity Law Legislative Competence Retirement Age Policy Disqualification for Public Office Natural Justice Single Person Legislation +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

Appellant

Kailash Chand Mahajan and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (by Special Leave) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment prescribing age of superannuation for Chairman/Member of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board was unconstitutional as 'single person legislation' and violative of Article 14.
  2. 2 Whether cessation from office upon attaining 65 years was 'automatic' under the amended Act.
  3. 3 Whether failure to implead the successor (Mr. Chauhan) as a party in the writ petition was fatal to the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The legislature is competent to prescribe a superannuation age for Electricity Board Members by way of policy. The amendment applied generally and did not constitute arbitrary or discriminatory 'single person legislation.' The cessation of office upon attaining 65 years was automatic under the law, and there was no violation of Articles 14, 16, or 21. Failure to implead the successor was not fatal as no relief was sought against him.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court quashing the notification and Act set aside.
  • Respondent ceases to hold office from 13.7.1990.