https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171222 A railway service rule stating that a ministerial servant may be required to retire at 55, but should ordinarily be retained if efficient, was construed as conferring only a discretionary power to continue service until 60 and not an enforceable right to remain in service. The differential treatment in later retirement notifications, which excluded servants already retired before 8 September 1948, was upheld as a reasonable classification based on the date of the policy change and not as arbitrary discrimination. The challenge to compulsory retirement therefore failed on both the service-rule construction and the constitutional objection. en-us Thu, 16 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:30:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171222 A railway service rule stating that a ministerial servant may be required to retire at 55, but should ordinarily be retained if efficient, was construed as conferring only a discretionary power to continue service until 60 and not an enforceable right to remain in service. The differential treatment in later retirement notifications, which excluded servants already retired before 8 September 1948, was upheld as a reasonable classification based on the date of the policy change and not as arbitrary discrimination. The challenge to compulsory retirement therefore failed on both the service-rule construction and the constitutional objection. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171222