Discretionary retirement under service rules and a policy-based classification were upheld against a challenge to retention and equality.

A service rule stating that a ministerial railway servant should ordinarily be retained until 60 years if efficient was construed as discretionary, not as creating a vested right to remain in service beyond 55 years; the competent authority retained power to require retirement at 55 years. The Court also upheld the classification between servants retired before and after 8 September 1948, holding that the distinction rested on a real change in policy and procedure and was not arbitrary. The retirement order was therefore sustained, and the Article 14 challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a ministerial railway servant governed by Rule 2046/2(a) had a right to be retained in service up to the age of 60 years if efficient; (ii) whether the differential treatment of servants retired before and after 8 September 1948 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether a ministerial railway servant governed by Rule 2046/2(a) had a right to be retained in service up to the age of 60 years if efficient.

Analysis: The rule conferred on the competent authority the power to require retirement at 55 years. The words that such a servant "should ordinarily be retained" if efficient up to 60 years were construed as creating only an option in the authority to continue service beyond 55 years, not a vested right in the servant. The expression "ordinarily" indicated that retention was the general course but not an invariable mandate, and the authority could still decide on retention by considering relevant circumstances.

Conclusion: The servant had no enforceable right to remain in service beyond 55 years; retention up to 60 years was discretionary and not mandatory.

Issue (ii): Whether the differential treatment of servants retired before and after 8 September 1948 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The later administrative decisions and notifications created two classes of retired ministerial servants based on the date on which retirement had occurred. That classification was held to be founded on a real and intelligible distinction, namely, the change in governmental policy and procedure from 8 September 1948 onwards. The distinction was not arbitrary and did not amount to denial of equal protection.

Conclusion: The classification was reasonable and did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The challenged retirement order was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service rule states that an employee may be required to retire at a specified age but should ordinarily be retained if efficient, the rule vests discretion in the employer to continue service and does not create a legal right to retention; a classification based on a change in policy from a specified date is valid if it rests on a real and non-arbitrary distinction.

---