Anda di halaman 1dari 1

. Ganesh Ram vs . State of Jharkhand and Ors . ( 05 . 04 .

2006 - JHRHC )

Equivalent Citation: [2006(110)FLR156], [2006(2)JCR489(Jhr)]

Decision Date: 05.04.2006
Subject: Service
Act: Bihar Reorganization Act 2000 - Section 84 Bihar Reorganization Act 2000 - Section 85 Minimum Wages Act 1948 - Section 2 Minimum
Wages Act 1948 - Section 3 Minimum Wages Act 1948 - Section 3(3) Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 - Section 2 Child
Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 - Section 3 Indian Majority Act 1875 Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 - Section 79 Bihar Pension
Rules 1950 - Rule 57 Bihar Financial Rules Bihar Service Code 1952 - Rule 73 Bihar Junior Civil Services (Recruitment) Rules 1951 Bihar Civil
Services (Judicial Branch) Rules 1955 Bihar Municipal Officers and Staff (Appointment Duties Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1955 - Rule 4
Case Note: Service - Retirement - Challenge thereto - Section 2 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)
Act, 1986 -73 of Bihar Service Code, 1952 - Petitioner challenged order, issued by 3rd Respondent, whereby informing Petitioner that he,
having completed 40 years of service, had retired from his service - Held, Whether a Government servant could be superannuated
(compulsorily retired) from service on completion of 40 years of service even in absence of any such rule, taking aid of rule which only
prescribes only age of superannuation-Whether after completion of 40 years of service, a person could be retired from service, treating his
age as 18 years at the time of entry in service - Whether a minor of tender age could be appointed in Government service - Held, age of
superannuation of an employee was fixed by provision of statutory Law or by framing Rules, Regulations or guidelines - A person, who had
completed his 14th year of age but had not completed his 18th year [adolescent-as defined under Clause (a) of Section 2 of Act, 1948] was
eligible for appointment, if Rule/Guideline, issued by employer so permitted - If a person, who had not attained 18th year of age, was
appointed de hors rule, his appointment could be held to be irregular but his age could not be presumed to be 18 years for purposes of
superannuation (compulsory retirement) - If a person, below 14 years of age, was appointed, penal order could be passed against employer
under Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 but no order, penal in nature, be passed against employee - Age of superannuation
could not be left to whims of employer - There should be a rule/guideline/law of superannuation - If superannuation was based on age, no
person could be made to superannuate prior to attaining such age, except in case of misconduct or inefficiency - It was for employer to fix
age of superannuation (compulsory retirement) as per provisions of statutory Law, Rules, Regulations or Guidelines, which might be
dependent on age or on completion of a certain number of years of service or either attaining prescribed age or number of years of service 58 years was prescribed age of superannuation, under Rule 73 of Code, 1952 his date of birth having been recorded in service book as 1st
February, 1947, it was not open to Respondents to retire him on ground of completion of 40 years of service - Impugned letters were quashed
- Petitioner would continue in service till attaining age of 60 years, due to enhancement of Superannuation age from 58 to 60 years
Respondents were directed to pay Petitioner arrears of salary for intervening period, after adjusting pensionery benefits - Petition allowed.
Disposition: Petition Allowed