Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1195 OF 2007

State of Rajasthan & Anr. …..Appellants

Versus

C.P. Singh & Ors. …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. State of Rajasthan has preferred this Civil Appeal to assail the judgment  

and order dated 19.3.2004 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.136/1995.  By  

the impugned judgment,  the High Court allowed the Second Appeal,  set  

aside the judgment and decree of Trial Court as well as the First Appellate  

Court and decreed the Suit of Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) with a finding  

that  Respondent  No.1  had  been  illegally  made  to  superannuate  on  

19.6.1974 at the age of 55 years,  as prescribed under the Rajasthan Service  

Rules,  1951 (hereinafter  referred to  as ‘the Rules of  1951’).   The High  

Court  has also declared that  Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff)  was entitled to  

continue in service upto the age of 58 years, i.e., the age of retirement as  

1

Page 2

per  the Central  Civil  Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘the  

Regulations’).   The  consequent  benefits  like  pay,  increments  and  other  

service benefits have also been granted to Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff).

2. The essential facts relevant for deciding the issue raised in this appeal are  

not in dispute as indicated hereinafter.   Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff)  was  

appointed  initially  in  the  State  of  Ajmer  and  was  governed  by  service  

conditions  in  the  Regulations.   The  State  of  Ajmer  was  a  Centrally  

Administered Part ‘C’ State till its integration with the State of Rajasthan  

w.e.f. 01.11.1956.  Respondent No.1 was absorbed in the services of the  

State of Rajasthan from that date as Cane Development Assistant.  Thus,  

his service at the time of re-organisation came to be governed generally by  

Rules of 1951.  As provided under these Rules, Respondent No.1 was made  

to retire on attaining the age of 55 years on 19.6.1974.

3. Respondent  No.1  filed  Suit  No.89/1976  at  Jaipur  claiming  that  he  was  

illegally retired at the age of 55 years and also sought a decree that he is  

entitled to continue in service till 30.6.1977 under the Regulations and was  

entitled to consequential benefits of pay, increments, seniority, promotions  

etc.  On contest made by the State of Rajasthan, the Suit was dismissed  

with  a  finding  that  the  services  of  Respondent  No.1  (Plaintiff)  were  

governed by the Rules of 1951 which prescribed the age of retirement as 55  

years.

2

Page 3

4. On facts, there was no dispute at any stage of the Suit that Respondent No.1  

was  entitled  to  exercise  option  under  Rule  11  of  Rajasthan  Services  

(Protection of Service Conditions)  Rules, 1957  (hereinafter  referred to  as  

‘the  Rules  of  1957’)  and  he  exercised  that  option  and  elected  to  be  

governed,  as  regards  leave  and  pension,  by  the  rules  applicable  to  him  

immediately before the appointed day, i.e., the Regulations in place of the  

Rules of 1951.  The relevant part of Rule 11 is as follows :

“11.  Leave  and  Pension  Rules.-As  regards  leave  and  pension  a  Government servant may exercise option of electing either the rules  applicable  to  him  immediately  before  the  appointed  day  or  rules  incorporated in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. ... … … …”

5. The learned Munsif, however, came to the view that the option given by the  

Plaintiff related only to leave and pension and not to retirement or age of  

retirement.  He came to such a view because Rule 11 begins with the words  

–  “As  regards  leave  and  pension”  and  omits  to  mention  -  “age  of  

retirement”.

6. Respondent  No.1’s  Regular  First  Appeal  No.192/1980  came  to  be  

dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 17.12.1994  

and the view of the Trial Court was upheld.  Second Appeal preferred by  

Respondent  No.1  was,  however,  allowed  by  the  High  Court  by  the  

impugned judgment and order dated 19.3.2004.

3

Page 4

7. A perusal  of the judgment  and order  under  appeal shows that  the  High  

Court has noticed the relevant facts correctly and, on the basis of admitted  

facts, has decided  the question of law in favour of Respondent No.1 by  

holding that the option  in respect  of  leave and  pension  exercised by  

Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) made the Regulations applicable to his service  

conditions relating to pension and, therefore, he could not have been retired  

on the basis of service conditions with regard to pension in the Rules of  

1951.   The  High  Court  noted  that  though  immediately  prior  to  re-

organisation  of  State  of  Rajasthan,  i.e.,  30.10.1956,  the  age  of  

superannuation under the Regulations was also 55 years but on account of  

amendment in the year 1962 it had been raised to 58 years and, therefore, in  

the  year  1974 when the  State  of  Rajasthan decided to  consider  case  of  

Respondent No.1 for retirement he should have been given the benefit of  

provisions in the Regulations as existing on that date and not provisions in  

the Rules of 1951.

8. On behalf of the Appellants, the simple contention is that the option under  

Rule 11 of the Rules of 1957 should be confined to the benefits of pension  

under the  Regulations alone and not  to  the age of  retirement.   In  other  

words,  the  age  at  which  Respondent  No.1  was  to  be  retired  under  the  

Regulations  should  have  been  ignored  and  for  this  purpose  the  age  of  

superannuation in the Rules of 1951 alone should have been held to be  

applicable.  In the alternative, it has also been submitted that since the age  

4

Page 5

of  superannuation  immediately  before  the  re-organisation  of  State  of  

Rajasthan  even  under  the  Regulations  was  55  years,  Respondent  no.1  

should not have been allowed benefit of enhanced age of superannuation on  

account  of  subsequent  amendment  in  the  Regulations  made  in  the  year  

1962.

9. To the contrary, it has been submitted on behalf of Respondent No.1 that  

proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 115 of the States Re-organisation Act,  

1956 protected the conditions of service applicable immediately before the  

appointed  day  and  they  could  not  be  varied  to  the  disadvantage  of  

Respondent  no.1  except  with  the  previous  approval  of  the  Central  

Government.  It has further been submitted that Rules of 1957 were framed  

under Article 309 of the Constitution of India under directions issued by the  

Central Government under Section 117 of the States Re-organisation Act,  

1956 and the option under Rule 11 with regard to leave and pension rules  

was  by  way  of  protecting  the  conditions  of  service  applicable  to  

Respondent No.1 immediately before the appointed day.  Once Respondent  

No.1  exercised  his  option  and  elected  to  be  governed  by  the  Rules  

regarding pension applicable to him immediately before the appointed day,  

i.e., the Regulations, the age of retirement prescribed under the Regulations  

like other pensionary provisions would continue to govern him as per the  

5

Page 6

Regulations amended from time to time till the age of superannuation as per  

the Regulations which, since the year 1962 came to be 58 years.

10. On  considering  the  rival  submissions,  we  find  merit  in  the  case  of  

Respondent  No.1  because  the  State  of  Rajasthan itself  framed Rules  of  

1957 and granted wide and comprehensive option to Respondent No.1 to  

elect  either  to  be  governed by the  Rules applicable  to  him immediately  

before the appointed day or the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 in respect of  

leave and pension.  The option was not limited to any specific provision in  

the Regulations relating to pension or those in the Rajasthan Service Rules,  

1951.  Since Respondent No.1 opted for the Regulations as a whole, his  

retirement benefits had to be governed by the provisions contained in the  

Regulations including the age of retirement as applicable at the relevant  

date when he could be retired.  His other pensionary benefits would also be  

governed by the provisions of the Regulations including amendments made  

therein and on this latter aspect there is no dispute.

11. If the submission advanced on behalf of the Appellants is accepted and if it   

is  held  that  the  age  of  retirement  mentioned  in  the  Regulations  on  

30.10.1956  would  govern  persons  like  Respondent  No.1  and  others  

governed  by  the  Regulations  independently  of  any  option  would  have  

different age of retirement after 1962 amendment, would lead to inequity as  

well  as  denial  of  equality  amongst  persons  who  are  admittedly  to  be  

governed by the Regulations.  It would be unreasonable to hold that since a  

6

Page 7

class of employees had opted for the Regulations, they would not get the  

benefit  of its  amendments and would retire at  55 years whereas another  

class of employees would have the benefit of retiring at 58 years of age on  

account of amendment in the year 1962.

12. A careful appraisal of the wordings in Rule 11 of the Rules of 1957 also  

supports  the  conclusions  indicated  above.   The  option  for  the  rules  

applicable to the employee immediately before the appointed day does not  

contain any restriction  that  the  option shall  be  to  such rules excluding  

the one providing for age of retirement or only as they stood on a particular  

day.  The clause ‘immediately before the appointed day’ occurring after the  

clause ‘rules applicable to him’ clearly relates to the word ‘applicable’ and  

it cannot be read to mean the rules as ‘existing’ before the appointed day.  

The elected rules  cannot  be  restricted for  any good reasons only to  the  

provisions existing in the past on the appointed day so as to exclude any  

amendment  made  in  such  rules  during  the  service  of  the  concerned  

employee.  In fact, the elected pension rules are to govern the concerned  

employee in future also.  If the Rules of 1951 will apply to the concerned  

employee  who  opts  for  the  same  along  with  amendments  made  in  the  

future, there can be no rationality in the view that the other rules applicable  

before  the  appointed day shall  apply but  without  any amendments  even  

when such amendments are made during the service period of the employee  

opting for the same.

7

Page 8

13. The Appellant-State of Rajasthan may be correct in its submission that the  

proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 115 of the States Re-organisation Act,  

1956 does not help Respondent No.1 directly because the age of retirement  

under the Regulations even before the appointed day was only 55 years and  

that has not been varied to his disadvantage.  However, once the State of  

Rajasthan, with the previous approval of the Central Government, gave an  

option to Respondent No.1 not confined to any particular age of retirement  

but to elect between Regulations and  the  Rules of  1951,  Respondent  

No.1 cannot be subsequently deprived of the benefits of enhanced age of  

retirement accruing to him on account of amendments in the Regulations  

made in the year 1962 when Respondent No.1 was still in service.  After  

that amendment in the Regulations, his retirement age legally became 58  

years.  As discussed above, there is no good reason to take a view contrary  

to that of the High Court which has answered the substantial question of  

law involved in the Second Appeal appropriately and correctly.

14. In the facts  of the case,  we find no merit  in the Civil  Appeal and it  is   

accordingly dismissed but without costs.

……………………………….J. [ANIL R. DAVE]

………………………………..J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

New Delhi. April 04, 2014.

8