Shyam Lal vs 1. The State Of Uttar Pradesh2. The Union ... on 30 March, 1954
Indeed, in Shyam Lal's case (1), the Government did give to
the
(1) [1955] i S.C.R. 26.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (2.88 seconds)Bholanath J. Thaker vs State Of Saurashtra on 4 May, 1954
Now, the provision in R. 165-A on which the respondent
relies does not, on its true construction, impose any fetter
on the power previously conferred on the State in terms
absolute, to terminate the services of its servant without
assigning any reason. It is really in the nature of depart-
mental instructions to be followed when action is proposed
to be taken under, that rule, and makes it clear that the
enquiry into the charges is only for the satisfaction of the
authorities. We are accordingly of opinion that R. 165-A is
Dot violative of Art. 311(2) and is intra vires, and that
the impugned order' dated October 30, 1952, passed in exer-
cise of the power conferred thereby is valid.
A contention was also raised for the respondent that under
the rules of service in force in the State of
74
580
Junagadh, the age of superannuation was 60, that art. XVI
of the Instrument of Accession provided that the permanent
members of the public services in the several States should
be continued on conditions not less advantageous than those
on which they were holding office at the date of accession,
and that under this Covenant, the respondent was entitled to
continue until he attained the age of 60. The decision in
Bholanath J. Thaker v. State of Saurashtra(1) was relied on
in support of this position.
The Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850
1