Dharam Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and others

S. R. Singh, J.—Heard Sri R.A. Verma for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the State Authorities.

The petitioner, a Lekhpal has been compulsorily retired by the order impugned herein under the Fundamental Rules 56(C) on attaining the age of 50 years. The order is sought to be quashed inter alia on the ground that proviso (i) to Rule 31 of the Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 empowers the appointing authority to retire a Lekhpal from service after giving him at least 3 months previous notice in writing "on the date on which he attains the age of 55 years or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice" whereas the petitioner has been retired before he attained the age of 55 years. Proviso (i) to Rule 31(2) is quoted below : Provided that

(i) the appointing authority may, after giving at least 3 months previous notice in writing to the Lekhpals without assigning any reason retire him from service on the date on which he attains the age of 55 years or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice."

In just a position of the aforestated statutory rule, the Fundamental Rule 56(C) of the F.H.B., Vol. II, Part II to IV which has been made the basis for compulsorily retiring the petitioner, is excerpted below for ready reference.

"Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or clause (b), the appointing authority may, at any time, by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary), without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or such Government servant may, by notice to the appointing authority, voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of (forty five years) or after he has completed qualifying service for twenty years."

In the above conspectus, the question that surfaces is whether Rule 31 of the Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 will have precedence over Fundamental Rule 56(C) aforestated. According to me the specific rules will prevail over the general rules, Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 being specific governing the service condition of Lekhpals will prevail over the general rules embodied in Fundamental Rule 56(C) and by this reckoning, the petitioner was not liable to be compulsorily retired before he attains the age of 55 years. The respondents have tried to vindicate the order on the dint of Government Order dated 621989 as stated in Paragraph 15 of the counteraffidavit. The Government Order, in my opinion, cannot be given precedence over the statutory rules. The statutory rule governing the service conditions of Lekhpal envisages that Lekhpals can be retired from service "on the date on which he attains the age of 55 years or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice." The order impugned herein, therefore, cannot be sustained.

As a result of the foregoing discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Petition allowed.