The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others vs J. Selvaraj

V. Ramaswami, J.—The respondent was compulsorily retired on the ground that it was necessary in public interest, by an order 31.8.1976

by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai South. A cheque representing three months pay and allowances on the date of retirement was enclosed.

But in quoting the provision of law, the Superintendent of Police mentioned that he was compulsorily retiring him under Rule 56(d) of the

Fundamental Rules. When the matter was taken in appeal by the respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai, who is the

appellate authority, was of the view that Fundamental Rule 56(d) was not applicable, but the provision under which the retirement should have

been made was under Rule 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960. Both these provisions are identically worded except that the

Liberalised Pension Rule, was specifically applicable to only those Government servants, who retired from service on or after 1st July, 1960, and

who belong to a pensionable service whereas F.R. 56(d) has no restriction. However, the Appellate Authority stated in the order that ""In the

circumstances, I hereby cancel the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai South retiring him compulsorily under F.R. 56(d) issued in the

Proceedings cited and order the compulsory retirement on public grounds from 31.8.1976 A.N. under Rule 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Liberalised

Pension Rules 1960"".

The learned single Judge, who heard the writ petition, referred to the old Pension Rule 3(2) where the Government was authorised to

compulsorily retire any Government servant from service any time after the 30 years of qualifying service and stated that since in this case as on

31.8.1976 the respondent had not completed 30 years of service, the order of compulsory retirement was invalid. The learned Government

Pleader now brought to our notice that R, 3(2) was amended by G.O.Ms. No. 314 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 14.3.1973 which

provided that ""on or after the 1st March, 1972 the appropriate authority shall, if it is of opinion that it is in the public interest to do so have the

absolute right to retire any Government Servant by giving him a notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowance in

lieu of such notice after he has attained the age of fifty years or after he has completed twenty five years of qualifying service"". In the circumstances,

therefore, the order of the learned Judge referring to the old Rule and allowing the Writ Petition could not be sustained. The learned Counsel for

the respondent, however, contended that since the Appellate Authority had cancelled the order under F.R. 56(d) and made a new order under

Rule 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Liberalised Pension Rule, 1960, the provisions of Rule 3(2) should have been followed in respect of payment of three

months pay and allowances. We are unable to agree with this interpretation of the appellate order by the learned Counsel. We are of the view that

what all the Appellate Authority intended to mention was that the Superintendent of Police who is the competent authority both under F.R. 56(d)

and Rule 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960, has quoted a wrong provision of law in compulsorily retiring the respondent.

Therefore, except modifying the provision of law quoted by the Superintendent of Police, the Appellate Authority did not interfere with his order

because he also agreed that on public grounds the respondent shall be retired and he also stated that the retirement will be effective from

31.8.1976 A.N. In the circumstances, the payment of three months salary by cheque in lieu of notice for compulsorily retiring the respondent with

effect from 31.8.1976 will satisfy the Rule 3(2) as well because the order of the Superintendent of Police shall be treated as having been modified

only to the extent of modifying the provision of law and not that the Appellate Authority had made a fresh order.

In the result, the writ appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Judge is set aside and the writ petition shall stand dismissed; but there will be no

order as to costs.