Supreme Court Lays Down the Age Bar Restrictions For Government Employees

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

The case in hand is Gopal Prasad v. Bihar School Examination Board & Ors. The Appellant is a Calligraphist-cum-Assistant working with the Bihar School Examination Board. He was about 15½ years old at the time of his appointment in 1970.

The Bihar Service Code governs the terms and conditions for employment in the Board. It provides that the least qualifying age of entry into pensionable service is 16 years. It also provides that age for compulsory retirement is the date on which one attains 58 years of age.

The Board held a meeting to make a decision on those currently in service who they employed before the age of 18. Their resolution deemed those employed before this age to be 18 years old. It also superannuated Category-4 employees at the age of 60 years, and Category 3- employees at 58 years. 

Facts of the Case

The Appellant’s son had filed an RTI application inquiring about his father’s retirement date. The reply stated that the Board considers his father’s age in 1970 to be 18. Thus, the date for his retirement was 31st May 2012. 

The Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging both the reply as well as the Board’s resolution. The Bench dismissed the petition, by the order dated 24.04. 2012.

Thus, the present appeal lay before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant argued that Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952 prescribes 60 years of age as the criterion for superannuation. Therefore, it did not allow superannuation before attaining the age of 60. Additionally, the appellant argued that there is no rule prescribing the length of service as a criterion for superannuation. Thus, it did not allow superannuation based on 42 years of qualifying service. 

Arguments by the Respondent

Section 3 of The Majority Act, 1875 prohibits entry into public employment before one attains the age of 18. The age of superannuation would be 58 years/60 years, as the case may be. In any case, the total service one could render may not exceed beyond 40/42 years of service.

According to the Bihar Service Code, it is clear that there can be no entry in Government service before one attains majority.  The decision to retire the appellant on superannuation cannot be faulted with when he had completed 42 years of service in 2012. The respondent argued that this decision should not be revisited, as the High Court followed the same for more than fifteen years. 

Judgement

The Supreme Court reiterated that 18 years is the minimum age for entering public service. If the age at entry-level is open-ended, a minor of any age can seek his eligibility for public employment. This is manifestly illogical and cannot be the intention of the rulemaking authority.

The Court noted that the minimum and maximum age for entry and retirement in the service was 18 years and 60 years respectively. The Court determined that in any case, the total length of the period of Government service would not exceed 42 years. By one or other reasons, the Court cannot give any person taking undue advantage of the service rules to claim higher benefits. 

Thus, the Court held that the decision of the Board did not contravene any rules. It, therefore, dismissed the appeal. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -