Supreme Court of India
DURGADAS PURKYASTHAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2002 INSC 307
- Decided
- 22 July 2002
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S RAJENDRA BABU
Holding
The amendment to Section 8, allowing re‑appointment for a second five‑year term up to the age limits of 65 for Chairman/Vice‑Chairman and 62 for other members, does not curtail the superannuation age and is constitutionally valid.
Summary
The petitioner, a former District and Sessions Judge appointed as a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenged the validity of Section 8 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, arguing that a five‑year term with re‑appointment limited the superannuation age to 62 years and was contrary to the Supreme Court's observations in Sampath Kumar. The Court examined whether the provision violated the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure and Article 311(2) and whether it was arbitrary. It held that the amendment to Section 8, which permits a second five‑year term provided the member is below 65 years for Chairman/Vice‑Chairman and below 62 years for other members, does not curtail the superannuation age and is consistent with the earlier Sampath Kumar judgment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 8 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides a five‑year term with possible re‑appointment, violates the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure and Article 311(2) by effectively curtailing the superannuation age.
- Whether the provision is contrary to the observations made in Sampath Kumar v. Union of India.
- Whether the provision is arbitrary or void for not fixing a minimum period of service before compulsory retirement.
Legislation cited
- Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985s. 6, s. 8
Subjects
Administrative TribunalsTerm of officeRe‑appointmentSuperannuation ageConstitutional validityArticle 311Security of tenureSection 8Judicial member
Judgment
DURGADASPURKYASTHA A
V.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
JULY 22, 2002
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JI.] B
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Section 8-Validity of-Judicial
Member challenging the validity of Section 8-Contendirrg that the provision
providing the term of 5 years and thereafter, re-appointment amounts to C
curtailing the period of superannuation at 62 years-Held, Government has
an option to re-appoint the member on expiry of the term beyond the first term
offive years, the upper limit being 65 years of age in case of Chairman and
Vice-Chairman and 62 years age in case of other members-Thus, in every
case term of office would not end at the expiry of five years-They would
become eligible for re-appointment for another five years period after D
consideration by the Committee--Service Law.
In the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the validity of
Section 8 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Petitioner contended
that the provisions of Section 8 of the Act providing the term of five years
and thereafter re-appointment amounts to curtailing the period of E
superannuation at 62 years and is, therefore, void and is also contrary to
the observations made hi Sampath Kumar's case*.
Dismissing the petition, the Court
HELD: An option is reserved to the Government to re-appoint a F
member on the expiry of the term beyond the first term of five years, the
outer limit being that he should be within the age of sixty five years in
case of Chairman and Vice-Chairman and sixty two years in case of other
Members. Thus, it would not be in every case that the Government would
put an end to the term of office at the end of five years and such Chairman, G
Vice-Chairman and other member would become eligible for re-
appointment for another period of five years after consideration by a
Committee headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court and two other
Members, one of whom will be the Chairman of the Tribunal. In these
circumstances, the provisions section 8 as amended does not in any way
223 H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A dilute the effect of or are contrary to the observations made by this' Court
in Sampath Kumar's case*. [228-8-D]
*Sampath Kumar etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1987] 1 SCR 435
and B. Ramanjini and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., [2002] 4
SCALE 197, referred to.
B
Gurdev Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Anr., [1964) 7 SCR 587,
distinguished.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) Appeal
No. 552 of 2001.
c
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
P.P. Rao and Sanjay Parikh for the Appellants.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General for India, Ajit S. Bhasme, P.
D Parmeshwaran, Sanjay K. Visen and Manoj K. Mishra for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJENDRA BABU, J. By an order made on August 30, 1996 the
Government of India appointed the petitioner, who was District and Sessions
E Judge in West Tripura, Agartala, as a Judicial Member in the Central
Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal']. It was
indicated in the said order that the appointment of the petitioner will be ·for
a period of five years from the date of joining or till he attains the age of
sixty two years whichever is earlier. The petitioner made a representation that
he is eligible for re-appointment after expiry of the term of five years until
F he attains the age of sixty two years as has been indicated by this Court in
Sampath Kumar etc. v. Union of India and Ors., [1987) 1 SCR 435. The
Department of Personnel informed the petitioner of the amended provisions
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act'] to the effect that a person whose term has expired will be eligible for
G consideration for re-appointment.
On 22.3.2001, the petitioner represented to the Chairman, CAT and the
Secretary, DOPT for consideration of his re-appointment as Member with
effect from 7.10.2001. He also made similar further representation on 1.5.2001
and 14.5.2001 to the Chairman, CAT and to the Secretary DOPTon 18.5.2001,
H 3.7.2001 and 4.7.2001. He made a demand on l.8.2001 to the similar effect.
DURGADAS PURKY ASTHA v. U.OJ. [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 225
The petitioner filed an application under Section·19 of the Act claiming 'A
that he is entitled to continue to hold the office as a Judicial Member until
he attained the age of sixty two years and sought· for various incidental
reliefs. At a stage when the matter was heard and reserved for orders, that
application came to be withdrawn to the file of the Principal Bench of the
Tribunal by an order made by the Chairman. Challenge to the transfer of the , B
petition made in the High Court of Calcutta was dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
In the meanwhile, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.
21329/97 (R. V. Mallikarjuna v. Union of India) and W.P. No. 21439/97 (P.
Suresh Reddy v. Union of India and Ors.) held that the period of five years C
should be read in such a manner as to indicate that the Chairman and Vice-
Chairman shall hold the office till sixty five years of age and Member, both
Judicial and Administrative, shall hold the office till the age of sixty two
years from the date of the assumption of office and Section 8 of the Act to
the extent of fixing appointment only for a period of five years as
unconstitutional. Hence the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 32 'D
of the Constitution challenging the validity of Section 8 of the Act.
The contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner is that the provisions
of Section 8 of the Act providing the term of five years and thereafter re-
appointment amounts to curtailing the period of superannuatio~ at 62 years
and is, therefore, void. It is submitted that this provision is contrary to the E
observations made in Sampath Kumar's case [supra]. Reliance is also placed
on the decision in Gurdev Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Anr., [1964]
7 SCR 587. The learned Attorney General brought to our notice, while refuting
the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, that the case of the petitioner
was considered for re-appointment twice by a selection committee headed by p
a Judge of this Court but his name was not recommended for another term.
This Court while noticing that the Act, as originally framed, provided
for a term of five years from the date on which the Chairman, Vice-Chairman
or other Member enters upon his office or until he attains the age of sixty five
years in case of Chairman and Vice-Chairman and sixty two years in case of· G
other Member, observed in Sampath Kumar etc. (supra) as follows :
"Section 8 of the Act prescribes the term of office and provides that
the term for Chairman, Vice-Chairman or members shall be of
five
years from the date on which he enters' upon his office 'or until 'lie
attains the age of 65 in the case of Chairman or Vice-Chairman and H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A 62 in the case of member, whichever is earlier. The retiring age of 62
or 65 for the different categories is in accord with the pattern and fits
into the scheme in comparable situations. We would, however, like
to indicate that appointment for a term of five years may occasionally
operate as a dis-incentive for well-qualified people to accept the offer
to join the Tribunal. There may be competent people belonging to
B younger age. group who would have more than five years to reach the
prevailing age of retirement. That fact that such people would be
required to go out on completing the five years period but long before
the superannuation age is reached is bound to operate as a deterrent.
Those who come to be Chairman, Vice- Chairman or members resign
c appointments, if any, held by them before joining the Tribunal and, )
as such, there would be no scope for their return to the place or
places from where they come. A five year period is not a long one.
Ordinarily some time would be taken for most of the members to get
used to the service-jurisprudence and when the period is only five
years, many would have to go out by the time they are fully acquainted
D with the law and have good grip over the job. To require retirement
at the end of five years is thus neither convenient to the person
selected for the job nor expedient to the scheme. At the hearing,
learned Attorney-General referred to the case of a member of the
Public Service Commission who is appointed for a term and even
E suffers the disqualification in the matter of further employment. We
do not think that is a comparable situation. On the other hand,
membership in other high-powered Tribunals like the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal or the Tribunal under the Customs Act can be
referred to. When amendments to the Act are undertaken, this aspect
of the matter deserves to be considered, particularly because the choice
F in that even would be wide leaving scope for proper selection to be
made."
The principle stated in Gurdev Singh Sidhu case (supra) is that if a rule
provides for compulsory retirement at any time, without providing for a
G minimum period of service after which only compulsory retirement can be
ordered, that rule itself must be held to be void for contravention of Article
311(2) of the Constitution, because such compulsory retirement, in the case
of a permanent Government servant, amounts to removal; that the rule under
which the order has been made is unconstitutional and invalid (i) when that
rule does not fix any age of superannuation but enables the Government to
H retire a Government servant at any time, without payment of full pension,
DURGADAS PURKYASTHA v. U.0.1. [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 227
and (ii) when the age of superannuation has not been reasonably fixed and A
is unnecessarily short.
In the present case, the position is entirely different. The qualifications
required for appointment of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other Members of
the Tribunal are as prescribed under Section 6 of the Act. A person is not
qualified to be appointed as Chairman unless he is or has been a Judge of a B
High Court or has, for at least two years, held the office of Vice-Chairman.
A person is not qualified to be appointed to the post of Vice-Chairman unless
he is or has been or is qualified to be a Judge of a High Court or has, for at
least two years, held the post of a Secretary to the Government of India or
any other post under the Central or a State Government carrying a scale of C
pay which is not less than that of a Secretary to the Government of India; or
has, for at least five years, held the post of an Additional Secretary to the
Government of India or any other post under the Central or a State Government
carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of an Additional Secretary
to the Government of India; or has, for a period of not less than three years,
held office as a Judicial Member or an Administrative Member. The cases of D
permanent public servants who had a general rule of superannuation and a
different rule was to be applied in case of compulsory retirement at a very
early stage of their career were considered in Gurdev Singh Sidhu case. In the
case on hand, Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other Members have held the
respective offices in one capacity or the other earlier and by the time they are E
appointed in the Tribunal they would have reasonably spent sufficient number
of years of service in those posts. Therefore, the concept of security of tenure
of service in respect of those whose term is reduced will not be appropriate.
Further if a post is a tenure post, the incumbent in such post will go out of
office on completion of his tenure. The provision cannot be assailed on the
ground of arbitrariness having the effect of jeopardising the securify of tenure F
of public servants beyond reasonable limits.
The observations made by this Court in Sampath Kumar etc. case were
taken note of by the Government and amendments were made in Section 8
of the Act which now reads as follows :-
0
"Section 8. Term of Office : The Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other
Member shall hold office as such for a term of five years from the
date on which he enters upon his office, but shall be eligible for re-
appointment for another term of five years;
Provided that no Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Member shall H
':" 228 I l ·1; t H / >IU/ SUPREME· COURT• REPORTS'[2002)1SUPP. I S.C.R.
/A t.nn b".)xi:hold· office• as .such. after. he 1has mttained• "' -,;c 1. >'I' '·,1 1
'' r : • 1 L>flt.
. r-~,11,t 1fr1~1(-.r./ . .,1·:u1 t,J
(a) in the case of the Chairman or Vice-Chaimrnn, the age of sixty-
2q'1i'L JI! ;cu . . . ~Y~ ~~,a:l.~; ..~Bdc:n;~ l'J ~ JI'i~:. r,r; ·..,r.; ·,,,~. J' -.... ·.,tr~'/' 1.1
1r, .:1·,drr(6) 1 ifilthe"caser-ohliiy-·ottier Me~mber! the"age or sixty~t\v(Fyears:"
;·10 ~i pcu:1·1q l :,/- Jiii 'tu•' nor:-nl 1:,t .J l•.d• ,,..,.,_ i. ,1t, l1;n1_rJ1 ! •.. J
EB 1• to ".J~L~l? gp~!g~ i!'....re~~rv,eg 1 to)ge 1Qo,y_emmeqt to reappoirit a member on_t,he
.,~~p\ryr;o.f.!~~ 1te,tpl, ~ey9f!~: 1tl!e Jjr~t-~erm, o,f fiv~ years,. the outer_ limit being
, .t!J..~Lh~t.sho,!Jl~Jb~ J~it\lin,Jh~ ~ge of sjxty,,fi~_e .years ,intcas~,of Chairman~ and
11;Y,i9e~£=_,~!li!Jll.~g.~q1~b~ty"tw,o Y,~~rs jn .case of other,_Member.s_.rJ1ms, ·it would
itJ;J-<?.~!J:?~ it?; ~X~fYrC~~i.~hi!Ltl;i~~ Gpvem!llent.~oul~ put an end_,to ·the,term-,of
. C ·1 cif.fif~~a! ~~ ~!1.~Lof.,fjy~ry~ars;anq_such .<::;h~in~rnn, Vict;.._Chairm~n-and ~ther
~ 1 rM~!nR~r1 ~9.uJ~J~~99H~ ~,lig.t~I~S9r r"e;appoint_!Ilent _f()r another period.oqiye
:.iY~~s ~f!~~ ·S91'.ls\g~rn~ign,bx1 ~ 9<>1Jlm!tt~e_ ht!<!de~ by_~ Judge 9f the Supr~me
1 .~~H~rt -~~~> t»:g;.:o.!~enM~IJ19e.~~' ,q11eu~f. ~hom, ,will~ be ,th.e. Chairman .of ,the
,'.;J;'Ei,!>,l;!l}~l.: r_,~n.},i")~~f?· ci.~~ulll.SJ!'\n~~-s;; weJ.d_o. not ·thi11k th(l~ the, provjsion~ ,no"w
~~~de:...YiJJ. i.n.:?:t:IY.w.ayAi!ut~,t~e.,effe.yt of or are 1contrary to.t~e ol?servations ..
cD .:El.a~~:.bYn*is,,C,q~_P,:/,i~ ~qJnp[JthJ~wnar etc."case.,• L, ,0J: L '": ',,iftu r,;·,d 1
h L f1'HH~lJfHtLL.1 or:1u ... io ·. . i1n ;,.-. ..,..,-._ ~. ;.. : 'L \ IJ(I Jni., i 1'l<L. <: tn·. . r~:.....rn.,.·Jn 1
.... j.
1
e ', '·I,~ /(r,.~Cl'/:,Cf'Ji.i7{/!,n1,,qr,~-. ~; S.fa!e, o[ 1~d~rff_ P,~~~fs!z. r:,n~ Wf:, (~~93)
'J*1 ss~.~.?.1 ~~,?" ~h~:J~'~;_is,i~~,,<;>f}?,e 1W.g.JcS,?i~~--~~ ~nd~r_a, P~ade~n ~~ ~-~; l:!5>·
21329/97
J(1J l;I
rR. V Mallikariuna v. Union of India) .is reversed
,fi :.iv'L;t ~l".'lf' 1!./ '(,,r1u, IJflt: •u.11 .... ll..J~J,,1,
and it is held that
.i.tl'f: 11 .'.Jllbll I ('i) .)f'(•.J
)9,e,~}ffg~~B? .!~.~ur,f &~ ,t?;, N2!?9 ,S?.~rt, ?f1f.'~~~~~. ~~&~~~~,w,~s}?.~~l!Y, t~~~~J~~d
:E ,-..,r11nu.n
for and die High Court ought not to have· made an order of the nature in
Jfl'Jf'Jll'l.h. trt~yt.
•I l'ill
',(}£...IJ•·'"h • ~1i ,, t.UL'.J
0
-J ; ~ , ;'LJ 1
0
..JI'
1
.I lJ Jll!t'.J
quest10n ..
"Ji·...inc,,1 HJ {111LJ',;;.> lo Jt.'1JC'-f',J J~J .J1(• ,Ji".d~! 11
~·,..,,,..-f, .,, ~1 1 1 ;.,If_,,.· t,, ~i!.."J/ h,
·Jrnnq'Ih"ihe'·1igtit"o'i'what wb"h'a~·ers'tat~d 'ab~ve;·it· i~ lihi-ietessaiY io''c'ori~ider
1'0tnef 'contentions' brged-1 by: ttle' pariie·s~. Ih. tiie· result; thi~#'w'rii ~etitloh' . ls
"cilshlis1sei:i~ah ,rJ 1•1Wtli) riou. 1••1'' ·.rd .,11..r .1 .. , i .. -11.11,•r;r·'IJ'J 110 -,.it-.
·F J1!,Jn~1-to ~ll!UJ'.;·' ~:-~: ~·1~1LH.. 't'''JI tot . . 11 .J .,:~ .~:•·1
1
_;·· t11 1 r·~ 1·, L.inuo1'·t
N.J. ,. •: ,,~r.r· 1 1-t_._, :_, • / ,r• Petition dismissed.
J1.Jfl ·r,Jf..J , -,\._,\i\\!,.\ • \~1 1 \\'\\•. / (' 'IU• t "1PI ~d ,.,f If 1 i1fl. · .1ir'd' I·,;~~ 1
8 'l<Jll"·ir. 111 ·,. ,._,., ",.,N i':r• ,rr·L1 .,,1.,. l L ' ,·,r·rn • "") rb rd 1.. ,r1 .. 1 w1.!1..-•
l,,1•-tto "';o I" .HTl1Lf1·)_,; :tr I t\t. ~- 1 • I 'J .J'' • (_I I '
:;rt: 1r:1 1·tl H,:;1 .,, I ·10 1rt JJ .~ J1·
1
•
I' I i ; r; '' ' j I j j / , ')I; r ~ 11 l ,, .. ;.I '!l ',; ; l ' ;I q
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Administrative Tribunals"Sign in to search