GURDEV SINGH SIDHU versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

GURDEV SINGH SIDHU versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Article 9.1 of the Pepsu Services Regulations, as amended to allow compulsory retirement after only ten years of qualified service, contravenes Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and must be struck down as invalid because it unreasonably reduces the minimum period of service and effectively constitutes removal from service without the safeguards required by Article 311(2).

Parties
Petitioner: Gurdev Singh Sidhu; Respondent: State of Punjab; Respondent: S. Gurdial Singh (Inspector General of Police & Joint Secretary to the Government of Punjab)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 April 1964
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition allowed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Retirement, Constitutional Validity, Service Regulations, Public Servant Protections
Constitutional Law Service Law Compulsory Retirement Constitutional Validity Service Regulations Public Servant Protections

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurdev Singh Sidhu

Petitioner

State of Punjab

Respondent

S. Gurdial Singh (Inspector General of Police & Joint Secretary to the Government of Punjab)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether article 9.1 of the Pepsu Services Regulations (as amended) contravenes Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India
  2. 2 Whether the State can compulsorily retire a permanent public servant after ten years of service under the amended regulations

Ratio Decidendi

Article 9.1 of the Pepsu Services Regulations, as amended to allow compulsory retirement after only ten years of qualified service, contravenes Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and must be struck down as invalid because it unreasonably reduces the minimum period of service and effectively constitutes removal from service without the safeguards required by Article 311(2).

Court Disposition

petition allowed

Orders

  • Article 9.1 as amended is struck down as invalid.
  • The notice of compulsory retirement against the petitioner is cancelled.