U.P. STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT. CORPORATION AND ANR. versus K.C.P. SINHA

U.P. STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT. CORPORATION AND ANR. versus K.C.P. SINHA

Clause (iv) of Rule 27 providing for compulsory retirement at age 50 is not arbitrary or ultra vires for not prescribing a minimum period of service, nor is it retrospective; adverse remarks in confidential report are relevant and cannot be ignored absent mala fides. The order of compulsory retirement was validly passed and does not suffer from arbitrariness or infirmity.

Parties
Appellant: U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation and Another; Respondent: K.C.P. Sinha
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Decision, Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; respondent's writ petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Retirement, Arbitrariness, Minimum Period of Service, Retrospective Operation, Adverse Remarks, Articles 14 and 16
Service Law Constitutional Law Compulsory Retirement Arbitrariness Minimum Period of Service Retrospective Operation Adverse Remarks Articles 14 and 16

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

Parties

U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation and Another

Appellant

K.C.P. Sinha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Supreme Court Decision, Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 27(iv) of the U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Employees Service Rules, 1978 (as amended by Amendment Rules, 1988) is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 for not prescribing any minimum period of service for compulsory retirement.
  2. 2 Whether the amended Rule 27 operates retrospectively.
  3. 3 Whether adverse remarks in confidential report can be ignored in compulsory retirement proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

Clause (iv) of Rule 27 providing for compulsory retirement at age 50 is not arbitrary or ultra vires for not prescribing a minimum period of service, nor is it retrospective; adverse remarks in confidential report are relevant and cannot be ignored absent mala fides. The order of compulsory retirement was validly passed and does not suffer from arbitrariness or infirmity.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; respondent's writ petition dismissed.

Orders

  • The respondent's compulsory retirement is upheld.
  • The corporation is authorized to consider respondent's continued employment as Chief Marketing Manager.