Holding

The matter is to be referred to a three‑Judge Bench for determination, as precedent allows a review after the age of fifty under the 12 May 1986 circular and Rule 10(4)(a)(i).

Summary

The appellant, a civil servant, challenged a compulsory retirement notice dated 23 January 1989 issued under Rule 10(4)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, arguing that the review procedure prescribed in the Government circular of 1 September 1983 was not completed before he turned fifty, and that a second review after fifty was impermissible. He further contended that the later circular of 12 May 1986, which imposed a stricter "not less than good" standard, could not be applied to his case. The Court noted the earlier decision in Suryakant Govind Oke v. State of Maharashtra, which held that a review may be conducted even after the employee has crossed fifty under the 1986 circular. Relying on this precedent and other authorities concerning the effect of circulars on compulsory retirement, the Court directed that the matter be placed before a three‑Judge Bench for a full hearing. The appeal was therefore listed as pending before a larger bench.

Issues considered

Whether a compulsory retirement notice issued under Rule 10(4)(a)(i) is invalid if the review prescribed by the 1 September 1983 circular was not completed before the employee turned fifty.
Whether a second review of the employee's case can be undertaken after he has crossed the age of fifty under the 12 May 1986 circular.
Whether the later circular of 12 May 1986 can be applied retrospectively to a notice issued prior to its promulgation.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982s. Rule 10(4)(a)(i)

Subjects

compulsory retirementreview procedurecivil service pension rulesage fiftygovernment circularsadministrative lawservice lawMaharashtra

Judgment

~
...
MEGHRAJ URKUDAJI TEMPLE A

-
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

MAY 13, 1998

B
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 : Rule 10(4)(a}(I).

Service Law-Compulsory retirement-Review procedure for-Circulars
dated 23.1.1983 and 12.5.1986 issued by Government of Maharashtra-
c
Applicability of-Review of employee's case not done before he attained the
age of fifty years-Whether second review can be done after he crossed the
age of fifty years-Question referred to a Bench of three Judges.

Suryakant Govind Oke v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) Suppl. 2 SCC D
420; Union of India & Ors. v. Narsirmiya Ahamadmiya Chauhan, [1994)
..._
~.,
- Suppl. 2 SCC 537; K. Chelliah v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India
& Anr., (1992) Suppl. 3 SCC 82; Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of
Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 188 and State of UP. v. Chandra Mohan Nigam,
(1978) 1 SCR 521, referred to.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5197of1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.92 of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay, in T.A.No. 328/91 in W.P No. 1081of1989 .
.)'
""t R.P. Bhatt, M.N. Shroff and Ms. Suvira Lal for the Appellant. F

l.G. Shah, and D.M. Narogolkar for the respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. The appellant contends that the notice
G
dated 23.1.89 for compulsory retirement issued under Rule l0(4)(a)(i) of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 is bad inasmuch as the
procedure indicated in the Circular issued by the State Government on 1.9.1983
has not been followed before the appellant crossed 50 years and his case
must be deemed to have been reviewed in his favour before he crossed 50 H
419
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] 3 S.C.R.

A years. In such a situation, a second review after he crossed 50 years is, ~

according to the appellant, not permissible. It is also contended that it is not
open to the respondent while issuing notice on 23.1.1989 to apply the norms
prescribed in a latter Circular dated 12.5. 1986. It is contended that while the
23.1.1983 Circular p1escribes a standard of 'not less than average', the Circular
dated 12.5.1986 prescribes a more stringent standard of 'not less than good'.
B If review had been undertaken before the appellant crossed 50 years, then it
would have been sufficient ifthe appellant satisfied the standard of 'less than
average' - which, in fact, he did - as per the norms prescribed by the circular
dated 1.9. 1983. Th" contention of the appellant is that the circular dated
1.9.1983 is binding on the Government and is intended to see that the general
c power under Rule 10(4)(a)(i) is not used arbitrarily.

After hearing learned senior counsel on both sides, we were primafacie
inclined to accept the above contention of the appellant. But we have come
to notice a two Judge Bench decision in Suryakant Govind Oke v. State of
Maharashtra, [1995] Suppl. 2 SCC 420 wherein it has held that even if an
D officer's case has not been reviewed before he crossed 50 years, his case can '
be reviewed under the circular dated 12.5.1986 read with Rule 10(4)(a)(i) of the
Rules, and that this could be done even after he has crossed 50 years. We ~ -'
have, therefore, thought it fit that the case is to be decided by a three Judge
Bench.

E In this context, we are of the view that the decisions in Union of India
& Others v. Narsirmiya Ahamadmiya Chauhan, (1994] Suppl. 2 SCC 537, K.
Chel/iah v. Industrial Finance Corporation ofIndia & Another, [l 992] Suppl.
3 SCC 82 and in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab, [1987] 2 SCC
188 decided by Benches of two Judges and also a decision of three Judges
F Bench in State of U.P. v. Chandra Mohan Nigam, (1978] 1 SCR 521 all
J'
concerning the effect of Circulars/guidelines dealing with compulsory retirement
are also relevant.

We direct accordingly that the papers be placed before the Hon 'ble the
Chief Justice oflndia, for being listed before a Bench of three learned Judges.
G
T.N.A. Appeal Pending.