https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287180 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. en-us Thu, 16 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Apr 2020 17:15:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287180 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287180