Summary
The judges differed on whether an employee appointed at about fifteen and a half years could be retired after forty-two years of service before reaching his actual sixtieth birthday. Rastogi J would uphold retirement by reading the service and pension rules together. Banerjee J would allow the appeal because the retirement rule prescribed age rather than length of service. The matter was placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to a larger Bench; neither proposed merits disposition commanded a majority.
Issues
- Whether completion of forty-two years of service permitted retirement before attaining the prescribed actual age.
- Whether pension qualification rules and a Board resolution could supply a minimum entry age or alter retirement rights.
Provisions considered
- Rule 73, Bihar Service Code, 1952The judges differed on whether the age-based retirement rule, read with pension provisions, permitted retirement after forty-two years of service. (¶¶ Rastogi J: 3, Rastogi J: 18, Banerjee J: 5, Banerjee J: 26, Banerjee J: 43)
- Rule 57 and Rule 5 concerning qualifying service, Bihar Pension Rules, 1950Rastogi J treated the qualifying-age provisions as supporting an eighteen-year entry age; Banerjee J distinguished pensionable service from retirement age. (¶¶ Rastogi J: 3, Rastogi J: 5, Rastogi J: 12, Banerjee J: 28, Banerjee J: 29, Banerjee J: 31, Banerjee J: 32, Banerjee J: 33)
- Section 11, Indian Contract Act, 1872Rastogi J relied on contractual competence at majority in support of the proposed retirement conclusion; Banerjee J differed on the consequences of minority at appointment. (¶¶ Rastogi J: 13, Rastogi J: 14, Banerjee J: 23, Banerjee J: 24)
Held
- Rastogi J would dismiss the appeal: reading the pension and service scheme together, entry into public employment ordinarily required majority, making forty-two years the maximum service period with retirement at sixty. The Board’s unchallenged resolution and the long-followed Patna Full Bench interpretation supported retirement in May 2012. This was one opinion, not a majority holding. (¶¶ Rastogi J: 5, Rastogi J: 12, Rastogi J: 13, Rastogi J: 14, Rastogi J: 15, Rastogi J: 16, Rastogi J: 17, Rastogi J: 18, Rastogi J: 20, Rastogi J: 21, Rastogi J: 22)
- Banerjee J would allow the appeal: no minimum appointment age governed the original appointment, and the later circular could not operate retrospectively. Pension qualification governed computation of benefits rather than the age of retirement. A Board resolution could not amend Rule 73 or justify retirement merely on completion of a service period absent an express rule. This was the opposing opinion. (¶¶ Banerjee J: 3, Banerjee J: 4, Banerjee J: 9, Banerjee J: 10, Banerjee J: 11, Banerjee J: 13, Banerjee J: 26, Banerjee J: 27, Banerjee J: 28, Banerjee J: 29, Banerjee J: 30, Banerjee J: 31, Banerjee J: 32, Banerjee J: 33, Banerjee J: 34, Banerjee J: 39, Banerjee J: 43)
- Banerjee J distinguished Nagaland’s legislation because it expressly prescribed service length as an alternative retirement criterion, and proposed continuation until 18 November 2014 with consequential benefits. Owing to disagreement, the actual disposition was reference for assignment to a larger Bench. (¶¶ Banerjee J: 40, Banerjee J: 41, Banerjee J: 42, Banerjee J: 43, Banerjee J: 44, Banerjee J: 45)
Result
Matter placed before the Chief Justice of India for assignment to a larger Bench because of the judges’ disagreement. Appeal neither finally allowed nor finally dismissed by a majority.