TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a ministerial servant who voluntarily sought retirement and was granted leave preparatory to retirement could insist on continued service up to the age of 60 and invoke the protection of Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935; (ii) Whether the servant could withdraw the retirement request and resume duties before expiry of post-retirement leave.
Issue (i): Whether a ministerial servant who voluntarily sought retirement and was granted leave preparatory to retirement could insist on continued service up to the age of 60 and invoke the protection of Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935.
Analysis: Rule 56(b)(i) of the Fundamental Rules contemplated that a ministerial servant may ordinarily be retained in service up to the age of 60 if efficient, but the Court held that the rule did not cover a case where the servant himself repeatedly asked to retire. A servant who seeks retirement and obtains leave preparatory to retirement on the footing that service will end on a specified date cannot later complain that he was compulsorily retired. In such circumstances, Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 had no application because there was no imposed termination requiring a show-cause opportunity.
Conclusion: The contention failed; the plaintiff could not insist on continued service till 60 or invoke Section 240(3).
Issue (ii): Whether the servant could withdraw the retirement request and resume duties before expiry of post-retirement leave.
Analysis: The Court accepted in principle that a servant who has sought permission to retire may change his mind while still in service. But once service has legally ended and only post-retirement leave remains, the servant cannot claim a right to rejoin merely because the leave period has not expired. The leave granted here was treated as post-retirement leave under Rule 86 of the Fundamental Rules, following cessation of service on the retirement date already fixed by the plaintiff's own request.
Conclusion: The plaintiff had no right to resume duty after service had terminated.
Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit was upheld, and the challenge to the retirement decision failed in full.
Ratio Decidendi: A government servant who voluntarily seeks retirement and is granted leave on that basis waives the right to rely on protections meant for compulsory retirement, and after service has ended he cannot unilaterally withdraw the retirement request or claim a right to rejoin service.
TaxTMI 
